american association of state lleges and universities. "washington journal" is next. host: house and senate members, new and old, continue their legislative work in washington. the new senate democrat and republican congressmen are set to meet tuesday for electing party leaders. on the house side democrats and republicans will hold their leadership elections on wednesday. day two of the house ethics trial against representative charlie rangel after the u.s. congressmen walked out of yesterday's hearing. the committee members will begin in a closed session working toward a vote on each of the 13 counts against him. we will provide live coverage on c-span 3 once the members return for an open session.

go to c-span.org for more information. good morning on this tuesday morning. other headlines are about senator mitch mcconnell, republican leader in the senate, who changed his mind on earmarks. this morning we want to focus on that issue and hear from those who have been impacted by earmarks directly or indirectly. earmarked recipients only. we want to hear from just you today. the phone lines are split the same boy, but only those who have a story to tell about your marks. we want to hear from you during this first 45 minutes. there is the front page of "the washington post" on this story.

that is "the washington post." we want to show you what mitch mcconnell had to say in his own words. >> i know the good that has come from the projects i help support throughout my stay. i don't apologize for them, but there is simply no doubt that the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as a symbol of the waste and out of control spending that every republican in washington is determined to fight. and unless people like me show the american people that are willing to follow through on their smaller and even symbolic things, we miss losing -- risk losing them on the other efforts. i am announcing i will join the republican leadership in the house and support of a moratorium on earmarks and the 112 congress.

host: senator mitch mcconnell on the floor after previously saying the earmarked ban would not save any money and it was the constitutional right for senate and house members to be able to earmark money for their district, for their states. we want to hear from those who have been impacted by earmarks only this morning. remember, you could also send us a sweet -- tweet, c-spanwj or e- mail us -- the addresses are on the screen. we want to show you what senator inhofe had to say, republican of oklahoma. he came to the floor to defend their marks yesterday. listen up. >> president obama submits a

budget to congress, which congress either accept all or part of or rejects all or part of. if we reject it we substitute what the obama requests are, what we think is better for america. of the cost is the same. i often have said, stopping and earmark does not save ney because all we are doing is taking what the president would have spent on an item and changing that expenditure, canceling that and putting the same money somewhere else. host: "the financial times" has this story on earmarks. it shows where the money goes. the top 10 recipients that lobby in 2010 and the money they got. university of alabama, bae systems, nor for grumman, boeing, mississippi state, university misses become a raytheon, iowa state university.

a top 10 recipients in the 2010. it says about the idea of banning the year marks -- . rmakrrks california than on the independent line from winston- salem, north carolina. how have you benefit or not? what is your experience? are you there? caller: thank you for taking my call. interestingly enough, i am an independent but here in north carolina over the last 10 years the interstate highways that runs through where i am at in winston-salem, charlotte, to raleigh, of all dramatically improved and i believe they were specifically related to earmar

ks of the now deceased senator jesse helms, politically i disagreed very much but in terms of seniority and the power in terms of when he was in the senate, i am sure it contributed to the dramatic improvement of our interstate highway system in north carolina and our triad area specifically. so, i think it is a benefits -- is a benefit as long as us, the voting citizens, are informed of what the representatives are supporting, the different committees of what they may be chairman of and i think it is the responsibility to look out for their constituents so i hope the moratorium is only temporary. host: right now it looks like it would not be a lot necessarily but something senate republicans and house republicans say they want to follow. we have yet to hear from the democratic leadership on what they might do, but there is a

piece written this morning by democrat clare mccaskill calling for and earmark ban from the democrats as well. kentucky, roy on the republican line. caller: i have something to say this morning about earmarks. why are we always talking about firing somebody up there, talking about nancy pelosi, harry reid, and everybody, and i am looking for a job right now and i went to know what happened to my warehouse job. i did tell you right now, -- i tell you right now, i want to join the marines and army, appestat -- guess i have to join the marines sent to my grandpa was marines, he was a corporal -- host: we will stop you there and stick to the subject. earmark recipients only. if you were impacted directly or impact -- or indirectly.

earmark recipients only. back to "of santa times" article -- back to "the financial times" article. that vote over a year marks takes place in the caucus today, for senate republicans to vote on their leadership as well. pittsburg, democratic line. caller: infrastructure primarily. crumbling roads and bridges. especially public transportation. we need that desperately. they have cut our services over here in pittsburgh.

and we need jobs. s, i callall it earmark it real assistance help. we need some help. thank you so much. i appreciate your beautiful program. host: it will not be law, but a rule governing senate republicans and will expire by the end of the next congress, january 2013, unless renewed. joe, independent line. damascus, maryland. caller: i like your question very much and i know you are looking for a specific example whereby and earmark has impacted an individual. my contention is once earmarks -- they all impact the general population. me, you, my brother, my sister. everyone in the general population because earmarks take away money from the general

coffers that could be used for the betterment of society. whether it is wheat, corn, soybeans, or teachers or highways and west virginia, earmarks, i feel, negatively impact the general population. host: you have an example of earmarks for your community or state? caller: thank you for the question. i am in maryland but i go through west virginia all the time and a typical example where senator byrd who spent 50-plus years in the senate, took care of west virginia, and i can drive through that states on highways 70 miles an hour and not see a car. for me those are earmarked for highways and the development of infrastructure of west virginia, which is a great state, but to

me it does not benefit the general population. if anything detracts from the support of the general population. host: we will continue getting your stories about earmarked of hot -- and how you have been impacted by them, good or bad. first, headlines from the papers. one about charlie rangel and ethics hearing that began yesterday. we showed you a little bit about what the congressman had to say about the trial. you can see on the front page of "the hill" that his call for delay was denied. >> all i am asking for is time to get counsel, time to get counsel. you denied it before, and you are denying it now. >> i gather that you did not object to that admission of evidence by committee counsel -- >> i objected to the proceeding and i, with all due respect,

since i don't have counsel to advise me, i might have to excuse myself from these proceedings because i have no idea what this man has put together over two years that was given to me last week. and i just hope that the history of this committee in terms of fairness will be judged for what it is. so, with all due respect and recognizing how awkward it is for the members of this committee, as colleagues, and someone who would like to reserve the right of members to be judged by their peers with counsel, i respectfully removed myself. host: charlie rangel yesterday before the ethics hearing. that continues today, what the closed session at first this morning, and considering the 13 counts against them. joining me on the phone is bob

cossack, editor of "the hill." what do you expect from day two? guest: we could get a verdict very shortly. this has gone on for about 2 1/2 years. remember, this is an ethics investigation that charlie rangel himself initiated it, called on the ethics committee to investigate him. over this year he indicated he wanted the process to speed up. yesterday he said he wanted a delay. that was denied. basically the ethics committee wants to bring this to a close. now what they ar deciding is whether the charges against him are valid based upon the proceedings yesterday. i think they are going to get a majority. whether all the 13 counts is unclear. but i think they are going to find he did break house rules. there was a little bit of good news in that the ethics committee counsel said that he did not think there was intent to rich and self, that charlie rangel was sloppy and

overzealous and some of the things he did to raise money using congressional stationery. but that there was no indication of clear corruption. at first they have to decide, ok, is he guilty of breaking house rules? and then if that is the case, the sanction could be decided by the full ethics committee. and that could range from letter of reproval to expulsion from the house. that could require to it -- would require two-thirds of the house to agree to. i think it is less likely. i think what we will see is more along the lines of admonishment, in which is what tom delay got admonish several times, or this lesser punishment of letter of reproval. bobby scott, who sits on the investigative committee that charged charlie rangel said these rules violations did not warrant an admonishment. that they warrant a letter of approval. charlie rangel is the one who

denies there was a deal earlier this year where he was offered, ok, the ethics committee will admonish you, and he denied that. i think we could get a verdict possibly today. host: and that would be the end of the hearing from ethics committee? "the new york daily news" editorial is "well is charlie -- woe is charlie." the committee will ponder whether the facts -- and is up to jot a rental whether he will be heard with or without a lawyer. -- it is up to charlie rangel whether he will be heard with a without a lawyer. guest: with charlie rangel usually has something to say. whether it is with a lawyer or not. he has spent a range of $2 million of campaign fees on legal fees. he has tried to work out a deal with the firm that has

represented him. he had different councils throughout the process. he has always had to say. but as far as actually he had a lawyer by his side, the renowned the lawyer at the proceedings yesterday prompted some questions, is represented him, his office as nobody could it be at the time in a grand and the delay, that maybe he would represent him. it was a bit of a circus-like atmosphere for charlie rangel. he is not pleased. he repeatedly said he is not being treated fairly. and i think, though, if he had an opportunity to say something before sanctions come up, he will make the case. for now it minimizing the damage for charlie rangel. maybe he knows there will be some type of ethics violation brought against him and confirmed by the ethics subcommittee and then a matter of what the sanctions will be.

there are still rumors that charlie rangel will still one day want to return to his top democratic spot on the ways and means committee and if he gets more of a so-called slap on the wrist and less than a full admonishment, maybe he would pursue that. he feels that he did step aside reluctantly as the chairman, but there are indications that possibly he could try to return to the top perch. host: what impact will this have on that, the new york times editorial? they say --

what impact you think "the new york times" editorial have, not only the re-election bid but the short-term, his motivation for seeking that ways and means chairmanship? guest: i don't think he could ever return to the ways and means top position. i think his reputation -- he has a lot of friends in the house on both sides of the aisle but his reputation in the house democratic caucus, especially after they lost the majority, is damaged. and while he may stay on the committee i think it is highly doubtful that house leadership will let him return to the top spot on the ways and means committee. a so i think as far as it looked really, charlie rangel prove he had a tough primary and that he is beloved in his district and he staved off the primary and he won the general election quite easily, he had a challenger. so, i think as far as the

reelection bid, he has proven that he is popular in this district but as far as returning to a powerful position on the ways and means committee, i think it is doubtful. host: thank you, sir. let's return to our question here this morning about earmarks. hearing from earmark recipients, those have been impacted directly or indirectly by these pet projects. you like them or not? here is "the wall street journal" on this. it increases spending above what it would otherwise be.

maine, elliott on the democratic line. what is your story? caller: like i was telling the fellow who answered the phone a few minutes ago, i was told about this over the weekend. i don't know how it is involved in the health care program here, the obama health care thing, but i was told that starting the first of january that there is going to be a lot coming into the effects -- coming into it the fact, when you go to redeem your and the cans and bottles that the owner has to take the customer's name, address, and social security number and get this guy who owns the redemption

center lupe's you over $600 a year in a redemption money, he has also at the end of the year give you a 1099 form. i don't understand what that has to do with health care bill. host: what is the impact on earmarks? what does this have to do with earmarks, elliott? caller: i was told that is what this was, and earmark. i think it is a bunch of foolishness. this seems like the government has its hands in the middle of anything and this would be another way of controlling this year yet again. you can't breathe. it is getting to the point where it is ridiculous. host: after senator mitch mcconnell made the speech on the floor, two other senators cannot and said they support a moratorium, a ban on these, of one of them being olympia snowe, republican of maine. what is it due to increases chances of reelection?

caller: doing away with earmarks or at least limit them to send in that makes sense, i think it would help her a lot. i voted for her before even though i am a democrat. i voted across the party lines. i am not strictly democrat. if i think somebody is better in another party, i will vote for them. i really think it would help her if she were to want to limit it would do away with it at all. i think it is getting out of hand. host: call on the republican line. go ahead. -- paul of the republican line. caller: here in rochester we got roads fixed and all kinds of things going on -- we needed a new bus station, which they really don't need but they claim they do. and with the money coming in for transportation that has been said its -- set aside. rochester has made a profit with the transit system, advertising on buses and different things that have come up with, did make

a profit and still getting earmarks. the at thing and i think the moratorium -- let's face it, the amount of the money is not what we are focusing on some much is how people vote, to get somebody to vote for something else that may cost $3 trillion but they threw in this $200,000 earmark to help get the vote. so, when you really look at the totality of the bill, it is a humongous -- and i noticed you asked about olympia snowe and the way she votes. let's face it. i was are originally born in maine. olympia snowe and susan collins, they are both democrats anyways, let's face it, with the tarp votes and the other boats. they always pull over to the left. what are you going to do there? host: were you part of the tea

party movement is past the election? guest: no, i wasn't. because of disabilities, i can walk into certain things a lot. host: did you support the idea? caller: yes, i did. host: did you vote for any tea party candy? caller: yes, i did. host: the tea party is claiming victory over this moratorium on earmarks. what do you think about that? caller: i think it is good. but let's be honest, this is going to be a process that takes time to get other people to go along with your idea. more democrats and -- will cross over and find they are and let the ball. -- electable. someone said they chased all the blue dogs out. if you chase all the blue dogs out who are the republicans going to negotiate with all the other side that is even going to be close to them? but left is going to far to the left. it is a problem they seem to

have and they don't recognize. host: more on other proposals on earmarks. house democrats accepted a monument to a restriction -- on the senate republican side, senator inhofe, limiting bills sent to congressional campaign donors, eliminate staffers from contributing to fund raising, -- richmond, virginia. independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is two days in a row for you. this is kind of cool. two things. in terms of what impacts may, i

would say infrastructure on roads. my comment is that everybody going to congress want to have the impact. the debate is great. a moratorium, i did not necessarily agree with that but i understand why we are having the dialogue. paying attention to what we get in the state of virginia, some of which i agree with and some of which i have no idea about. i think it is a healthy debate. host: you said that members of congress that serve one to make an impact and one of the ways they do that is by earmarking federal money so that it is best for their region, district, their state. pew research did a poll right before the midterm election and they ask those if the candidate has a record of bringing government projects and money to

your state are you more or less likely to vote for that candidate? 53% said they were more likely, 12% said less likely and 33% said it made no difference. what do you think about that? caller: it makes perfect sense. if i were a new congressman, the first thing i would do is when i had an opportunity to go back to my district i would want to tell people what i had done for them. that will be the thing that lets people know, i did not go to washington and said on my thumbs. unfortunately what will happen is the leadership is going to dictate the positions a lot of these folks are going to have to take and, frankly, the only message they can go back to the district is now is guess how much we stopped spending, guests what we've done to curb spending. it resonates people, they would be, they are sticking to what they said. i doubt with a lesser-known congressman would have a huge

impact, not in the public eye, i don't know if they will get reelected. host:, but 8:30 will come back to the issue of earmarks for -- at 8:30, we will have a long time crusader against earmarks. here is a contrarian view, an article that was posted on vtstar.com, and it refers to a book about earmark -- "cheese factories on the moon: why earmarks are good for america." just reading a bit from it.

cleveland, ohio. maxine, democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel like there is a lot of good in the earmarks. we had a neighborhood bridge, 500,000 years old -- i am 68 and when i was a child it had holes in it and it was a rickety, and we got that repaired.

however, i could see some good in that earmarks, there are other channels we can get these things done. i still think this is a red herring to take our eye off of the big market. baggert want the tea people to tell us what looks like under the bus because the first thing republicans want to fight for is to put trillions and the deficit to give the million billionaires' more tax breaks then the $250,000 that they are entitled to. host: "the wall street journal" editorial says with earmarked behind them republicans can turn to a harder and bitter cost- cutting that would really cut the size of government.

baker city, oregon, dave on the republican line. your thoughts. caller: my thought is that i worked some of the projects that were earmark projects, and i have the feeling that we shouldn't have earmarks, not in today's economy. the reason is, is because those earmarks do provide money and jobs for some people, the ones that worked the jobs, but there's a lot of money taken out of the coffers for the average joe that does not get to work those jobs, that that money could be allocated better in the private sector for private companies to go out and did jobs like that. -- bid jobs like that. host: here is an e-mail from

helen from california. atlanta, georgia, ron on the independent line. you are next. caller: good morning. i must be a recipient because i see very many expensive signs all along the highway indicating some work is being done. but i don't think it is very fruitful. secretary shultz on a show suggested the administration has a non-employment program going. as far as i am concerned, what i

have for the in ministration, who is not doing very much for the primary problem, unemployment, is that earmarks only be used to provide employment for people, and that perhaps we should have employment suggestions from all over the country to get people back to work. host: "the washington post" this morning has the headline.

6 mile, south carolina. mike, democratic line. your thoughts? caller: i have no problem with earmarks. the money is being spent anyway. it is one way for say aye with the spent on something that is important. getting $400,000, a study about dredging the charleston harbor for larger ships. right now it is no more than a pinkies where, until something comes down when they have to either do it or not -- i think it is no more than a pinky swear. host: you have jim demint or lynsey gram down there, have you voted for either one? caller: i voted for lindsay gramm the last time he ran but i don't think i will be doing that again.

micheletti party movement has moved him paired -- the tea party movement has moved him far the to the right. talking about pre-emptive strike with iran, which is not exactly a great idea, in my opinion. host: those issues are more important to you then the fact brings government-funded projects home to south carolina? caller: yes. host: vermont on the republican line. you are next. caller: we want impacted by the tea party. we are a socialist state. all democrats. and as far as the stimulus programs, we had millions of dollars to build an airport here with only two airplanes flying in today. we are such a socialist state everybody is on a gimme program, and this senator is all they do is bring money to the underclass people and we can't even afford to pay our taxes.

paying $600 a week for by property-tax. just not sustainable here in vermont. thank you very much. host: savannah, georgia. david, democrat line. caller: thank you very much. all these people earmark people earmarks, think about this. the next time you have a national disaster, i want to see you -- don't want to see you in line saying where is the government. of those earmarks that your congressman or what ever brings to your state help see out. a lot of people don't realize the help they have been given by earmarks, not to mention the amount of money going towards -- sorry, a little bit nervous. towards research. a lot of medical things coming out in the last 20 or 30 years are because of earmarks. people need to wake up and smell the coffee. those teacup party years saying

they want to get back to the constitution, the founding -- founding fathers put that in the constitution. if they don't like that they don't like the constitution. host: what part of the constitution? caller: i am not sure exactly how it is written. but i keepearing these tea partiers -- host: the power of the purse strings? caller: right. host: we will talk about that more later with congressman jeff philippe when he joins us. first, senator jim demint, republican of south carolina, he was on one of the early morning programs and he said this push to end spending on these pet projects is a culture change in washington, as being reported by the associated press. we go to oklahoma city. spot on the republican line. what the make of senator jim inhofe's defense of earmarks? caller: i was just going to say

that i am sure we have earmarks here in oklahoma. i think every state has a highway coming through earmarks. i am very much against them because it violates the constitution's general welfare clause that spending by the federal government should be for the general welfare and not for local projects. pet project type activities. we have a solution to that here in oklahoma that was thought to be brought to the state legislature last session, a bill to put a brake on our excise tax going directly to our government. earmarks, the bribery that is taking place, could be stopped where the excise tax would only go to the federal government at the pleasure of the state legislature and the degree they wanted going to them, if they thought something was not

constitutional, they could withhold excise tax as protest. of course, one of our so-called republican leaders sat on that and would not let it come to a vote. but if state legislatures are serious about stopping earmarks and other unconstitutional skullduggery, those kinds of measures would be a great solution to that. host: more on senator inhofe. here is a tweet. twitter.com, c-spanwj. here is "roll call" today.

texas, independent line. what is your story? caller: there are a couple of things i wanted to address. the first thing is the tea party movement. if you don't want to be confused, just understand what ron paul started in 2007. that was essentially the tea party movement. if anybody wants to know what the tea party is about, i suggest knowing more about ron paul. host: your thoughts about earmarks? caller: the second thing about earmarks, constitutionally, i know the guy from georgia -- the

gentleman from oklahoma was right on is that it needs to be for the general welfare of the united states. yes, we need to build a bridge in a certain big-ticket area, yes, we need to do that, but the earmarks they are talking about getting rid of are the ones that are not drawn up in committee. they are ones that are just slipped in without any vote, without any debate, without any committee process. those are earmarks -- or those are what people call pork barrel spending. and the earmarks as a general rule, a general understanding of it is that it is the spending that goes to the state, like what you have been explaining. the reality is they earmarks you were talking about getting rid of, senator rand paul was talking about that he wants to get rid of those particular earmarks, the ones not drawn up in committee but are done behind closed doors in the back rooms

and the dead of night. host: we got your point. we will leave it there. we want to show you some more headlines about debates that coming up while congress is in town. a senate ratification of start hinges on senator john kyle's. defense secretary gates talked to him friday, on top of the early ignition pledge of $10 billion in increase. so, after pledging an additional $4 billion, the obama administration is hoping to secure john kyl's mode on this issue. another headline, report to urge foreclosure of vigilance. a panel expected to warn today that a widespread problem of

fraud in foreclosure people were cut up and the housing market and undermine the nation's financial stability just as the issue is coming under greater scrutiny in washington. there are several hearings. one begins today in the senate banking committee. it said the oversight panel raises concerns that lawsuits from investors who bought the mortgages could cause banks billions of dollars. if you are interested in the senate banking committee go to c-span.org to find out if we are covering that. and also some of the headlines this morning. spending worries put jobless benefits at risk. unemployment benefits expire november 30. the front page of "the new york times" has this had line -- europeans fear the debt crisis goes beyond ireland and could reach portugal as we're -- as well. and sides soften on tax-cut

issue. knoxville, tennessee. linda, democratic line. what has been your experience with earmarks? caller: i live in the united states, i have experience with earmarks. the problem with earmarks is it creates a fix solutions to real problems and prevent real solutions to real problems from occurring. host: we are listening, linda. caller: am i on? people sometimes don't understand what and earmark is. it is hard to get money for any problem in the federal budget but wanted there is to solve a real problem. what happens is the federal agency is supposed to prioritize among competing interests and pick the most valuable. instead, the money gets pirated away by a senator or congressman for his pet project in his district. i know it is near the end, so i

will give you a big example. tappan zee bridge versus high- speed rail. tappan zee, hudson north. built in world war ii, what pilings, falling it apart and has to be replaced and it will cost about $8 billion to do that. instead, harry reid, a democrat, pirated $8 billion out of the stimulus bill to build a high-speed rail line between los angeles and las vegas so that the gamblers can go back and forth. which is more important to the future of the country, replacing the tappan zee bridge or high- speed rail for gamblers? tickets, the use the bridge? caller: i don't know what -- but if you have driven north and south tried to get around new york, you have gone over it. hundreds of thousands a week, at least, if not millions. it is huge. host: democrat from missouri,

senator glenn mccaskill and newly elected pat toomey, a republican, teamed up to write this piece and "usa today." the two agree both parties must put a ban on earmarks. wisconsin, add, your last phone call on this -- ed, you are the last phone call on this. caller: when i took political science in the early 1960's, is essentially the political science professor describes earmarks, it was always called long-ruling, going way back in history. -- log rolling. we have a school of nursing i have always worked for hospitals. i was an army medic. essentially we were having to import nurses from canada, which was costing the hospitals quite

a bit of money. the other thing is david obey was our representative, and when he was chairman of a committee -- host: appropriations committee of the house. caller: he also brought money in to the national institutes of health along with the republican ranking member. and that was definite benefit. national institutes of health was extremely underfunded. and he was able to get involved with giving that institution money to come up with h1n1 flu shots and all of those things. it has been a definite benefit. host: that was ed, independent from wisconsin. we will talk about this a little later on, 8:30 a.m. eastern

time. with representative jeff flake. up next, representative chaka fattah, democrat of pennsylvania, will be joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> see what people are watching on the c-span video library, with the most recent videos,

most watched, and most share, right our home page. and click on the special 2010 election analysis tab for the continuing coverage of the midterm elections. watch what you want, when you want. >> listen to landmark supreme court cases saturdays on c-span ready. >> in texas, women still are not able to receive abortions from licensed doctors because doctors still fear that they will be prosecuted under the statutes. >> this week, part two of the roe versus wade, argued in 1972 is still considered one of the court's most controversial decisions. listen to the argument at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio, washington, d.c., 90.1 fm, nationwide xm 132 and on line at c-span.org. >> this year studentcam video documentary competition is in full swing. make a five minutes 8 minute video on washington, d.c., through my lens.

it should include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. upload your video before the deadline of january 20 for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there is $50,000 of total prizes. the competition is open to middle and high school student's grade 6 through 12. for all the rules and how to blow the video, go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative chaka fattah is joining us to talk about what is next for congressional democrats. i want to begin with the leadership vote that will be happening on wednesday for house democrats. representative mickey shuler decided he will challenge nancy pelosi for the minority leader spot and he said this -- we have just come off of the largest loss of the democratic party and almost a century and to be able to but speaker pelosi as minority leader is unacceptable to move the party forward in a

moderate direction. do you support nancy pelosi for minority leader? why'd you disagree? guest: for those waking up in washington, i know they are a little shocked about the eagle'' victory over the redskins but the last time they play the redskins beat the eagles. the fact of the matter is nancy pelosi have led us from the minority into the majority. we did suffer an election loss on the first tuesday of november. but i am convinced, and i think the overwhelming majority, not withstanding the press fascination with the leadership fight, nancy pelosi will win 90-plus% of the votes in our caucus because she is a very capable leader who led our caucus. yes, we suffered an election laws but that was after a tremendous accomplishment in the last session.

when social security was passed, there were losses, when medicare, there were losses, when social security was passed by president johnson. he said he was consigning his party to losing the south for more than a generation. sometimes to move the country forward it always creates unease and there could be electorial losses. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't goes forward. host: but the cnn opinion research poll taken right before the election, when survey those likely to vote, 70% said this election was about a rejection of democratic policies. so, given that, 70 -- 70%, and only 17% said it was a mandate for republicans. but still, but when forward with the same leadership, you are not concerned? guest: when the republicans lost their majorities, you did not see them shake up their ranks. they got behind boehner and

cantpr and the and now in the majority. i think organizations and teams have to be careful as you are moving forward. if leaders are moving in the right direction, there are going to be setbacks. to can't have major efforts deal with social injustice in the country like 30 million people without health insurance and not create some unease. there are health insurance companies that are upset, major wall street firms. they spent tens of millions of dollars, a lot of it secretly on ads. they ran 161,000 ads targeting nancy pelosi nationwide. that does not mean we did not do the right thing. sometimes you have to be prepared to take election losses. there were democrats who voted for the assault weapons ban under the clinton administration who walked on the floor and said we know we are going to lose our seats, we know there are going to be people in the district who

are going to think that this is somehow the slippery slope to people taking all of their guns from them, and they are going to vote us out. but we will save thousands of lives in the process. the person is served in the district next to mine voted for the clinton economic plan. she knew she was going to lose a seat, but we have millions of new jobs and balanced the budget. sometimes you have to be prepared to take a step back in order to move the country forward. i am convinced we did the right thing. and i think that over time history will judge the decisions we made in the 111th about saving the economy, and vesting and american oil and manufacturing, about to stabilizing regulations on wall street so we would have a financial crisis again, that those were the correct decisions, even if we suffer in the electoral losses at the polls. host: what do you want the democratic leaders to do as far

as pushing the agenda? do you want them to push an agenda that is more to the left or a little bit more to the center? guest: what they care about is an agenda that put people back to work. they care about an agenda that will balance the budget. the question of tax cuts and a few weeks here, and, in a, i am joining today with senator warner saying rather than tax cuts for the wealthy, let's make them available to small businesses who are going to create jobs, so over the long term we need to be investing -- democrats need to be part focused on growth, smart growth, development of our economy, putting people to work. this discussion about left-white is washington -- left-right is washington. i travelled round country. people are not focused on that. they are focused on jobs, how to secure their homes, the future of their children, how to

educate their children. host: on the tax-cut issue, you see that as a compromise, what senator mark warner put out. what are you hearing about republican support for that idea? guest: what the republicans said is let's keep the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires because they will potentially invested in business creation and therefore spur economic development. what senator warner has said, which why i joined with him this morning on it, is let's cut out the middleman. let's make those tax breaks, let's take 65 billion or $75 billion over the next two years and make a long-term reduction over a decade in small business taxes so that they can develop their companies and put americans back to work. host: if that proposal does not go anywhere and the only compromise on the table is extending the tax cuts for everybody for two years, would

you vote for that? guest: i don't know -- i know you had discussions about earmarks. earmarks the $16 billion and the tax cuts in total are $4 trillion. added to our national debt. which we will then borrow from countries around the world and some other investors. that debt will be paid for by our children and grandchildren. i am not sure we should just be willy-nilly about this. i think we do need to continue to spur economic activity. the recovery is not as full blown as we would want. so, i am not opposed to a temporary extension of tax cuts for people at $250,000 and under. but i am not sure i of for a permanent extension of tax cuts for anyone. i think we need to think long and hard about how to get the country out of debt.

we have a debt commission that laid out $4 trillion in cuts. you have a tax cut proposal that would be $4 trillion in lost expenditures. it would take us right back to where we are now. if you implement the both of those we wou be still about $12 trillion in debt as a country with $1 trillion-plus and deficit each year. you have to think it through. then we still have to do the appropriations bill for this year. you really would not be at 0 but you would add another trillion on the spending side. we have a tendency, kind of like the red meat we are offering is earmark reform. it is so minor in the scheme of things. but it is a great distraction from the real problem. the real problem is we are running a government in which we want the best military in the world but we don't want to pay for it. the costs of about $1 million poorer -- per soldier on the

ground and afghanistan a year, right, so we are spending billions a week in afghanistan but we don't want to pay for it. the first time in history, war bonds, were taxes -- so, we can have the best education, best health care, best military and not pay for it. republicans keep saying it is a spending part boom. i think it is in part a revenue problem. we want more government that we are willing to pay for so we are willing to borrow from the chinese and others. i think it has got to stop at some point. host: your colleague, democratic senator charles schumer from new york has a proposal as well to extend the tax cuts for those making $1 million and less. what do you think about that idea? guest: i think it says that is a very good compromise that has been offered. i like senator warner and little bit more, because it deals with

the question of the recovery. the only way we are really going to get out of debt as a nation is we have to -- you know, we have millions of americans on the sideline who would rather be contributing, not only paying their own bills, but helping to they need jobs. i like the warner proposal because i see it as a growth model. i have a friend back home who is a big democratic supporter but he says we have to push more on development. even though the president has done all along on smart reinvestment, electric battery investment, we need to see an economy for the future of the nation. we need to invest in it now. small businesses where the jobs are. host: carla in virginia beach, virginia. go ahead. caller: i first want to say

thank-you to the representative for his service. second, we have stopped to -- got to stop looking to these rich folk for taxes. we have a lot of people who are out of work, hurting, they do not have health care. these folks do not know how much money they have. we have to pay attention to the people in the country who are hurting. we have people who cannot eat, who cannot get medication. we need to do the right thing in this country. guest: i appreciate the call. people need to get more accurate information. a lot of people here my republican colleagues talk about the tax rate, and that it

is high compared to other countries. the truth is, many other countries have no tax exemption. more than two-thirds of companies pay no taxes at all. so when we hear politicians sobbing about the corporate tax rate, how it deters economic activity, it is not true. when we talk about people who are wealthy, $500,000 and above , jerry johnson -- he used to write for "the new york times." he showed that billionaires' paid little or nothing in actual tax rates. when warren buffett can say why is my secretary paying have -- higher taxes than me?

people need to listen up. you need to ask the real question. what is the effective rate? what are people actually paying? there are tons of loopholes in the tax code for no other reason than for people to avoid tax liability. we have a responsibility to the country not just to rile people up at rallies, we need to tell people the truth. that will give them a better idea of what we need to do. host: brenda in berlin, texas. good morning. caller: good morning. in regards to you communicating to the public, you could do more, you could be more effective, but there are democrats in texas. those who do not hear you are

listening to that other channel. also, i want to talk about the tax deal. please do not renig on that. third, you do not need to keep on justifying nancy pelosi. we love her. i can say this without a shadow of a doubt. republicans hate her, she must be good for our party. have a fantastic day. guest: i love texas and i am pleased to hear she loves our speaker. i think she had done an extraordinary job. she is the highest ranking woman to rise in our government. this is the only countries where the number of women will not increase. it will decrease.

we do not have the kind of representation that we should. the speaker is a great example of someone who is in politics, has made a tremendous contribution. i offered a bill on taxes that wouldeform our tax code, that would get rid of the income tax and create a fairer tax system, and also get us out of debt. i hope there will be all the proposals and that we can have a real debate in our country about how we pay our bills, how we deal with it fairly. i hope the majority -- morthan republicans came in with this contract of america and they said they would do away with the income tax. they never brought up a bill for a vote in the house.

and they controlled the house for 12 years. this is what i'm talking about in terms of being straight with people. it is one thing on the campaign trail, but when it comes to doing work, we do not see it. president obama has moved nuclear power plants forward for the first time in 30 years in our country. so again, i think people are getting a lot of bad information. host: a "all street journal" editorial calling it a victory for republicans. are you concerned about this? guest: i am not concerned about it in the sense that the wall street journal and others who

comment on it are in a raw state about earmarks. we need to focus on what we are going to do on the $4 trillion in cuts proposed by the debt commission. i think they should be applauded for putting together a vigorous plan. i do not agree with the notion of freezing combat pay, pay for our military for three years. the details you can pick apart. the fact that they have said to the country we are in a deep hole and we need to figure out how to get out of it, has forced others to come up with a plan. their plan does not even get the country out of debt. this is $4 trillion in cuts that does not even get to balancing our budget.

i think this is what we ought to be debating, what we are going to do about earmarks. there is no legislative body in the country where members will not be able to influence what happens in certain projects. whether they influence it in a bill, in communication with the executive branch -- but the notion that you will have a congress that will be impotent in its ability to affect what is going on, that is not true. we will be here 10 years from now and "the wall street journal" will be writing an editorial that the congress is somehow influencing how projects are done in the country. host: so this is just a game?

guest: it is a distraction, a purposeful destruction led by the new incoming republican majority. they want people to focus on earmarks. the truth is, it would not matter one way or the other in terms of the country's financial circumstances. it does not cut spending. those of us in congress will still find ways. they would call the secretary of education up and say we have a project we would like you to consider. host: clare mechanical of missouri disagrees with you, saying it would -- clare the castle of missouri disagrees with you, -- macaskill of missouri disagrees with you, saying it would --

guest: whether they do or do not end it, it is not a big deal, in my opinion. let's look at the real numbers. $4 trillion this year. we have another one $0.20 trillion next year. in the scheme of federal funding, it is not much. host: marietta, california. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? you are spinning them pretty good this morning. the last one he talked about, earmarks. of course, republicans. i am one of them. it is not this one% you just keep talking about, sir.

by the way, this continuing resolution is going to be coming down the pipe from your famous, fabulous leader who is from california. i would love to have this lady from texas adopt it. that would be fine with me. we passed our budget, $19 billion. we just came out with $26 billion more in debt, but that is not the point. the bottom line with earmarks is, it is the grease that pushes the sled along. guest: i am not going to react to that. it is a distraction. the republicans had a majority and they slowly increased

earmarks. i do not remember the exact number, but it was a big increase. we will see what happens. if they are going to end earmarks -- we will see. host: next phone call. glen. caller: you are talking now to one of the most important investors, an american. i would like to know how someone can get away with putting our country in so much debt and walking around with a smile on his face, as he looks under the table while still in office and says, there are no weapons of mass destruction and laugh? how can someone like that walk around after putting our country in a hole like this.

he is a criminal. we are the investors in this country. no one else should be investing in this country. host: you are referring to former president bush? caller: that man is a crook. guest: i would not accuse the president of being a criminal. i will say this. there was a hearing that i was in. the new bush and administration was about to take office. they had a plan to get the country out of debt. we were talking about paying off the entire debt of the country and what that would do for our economy. greenspan was talking about how central banks around the world would react to that. eight years later what we have is not trillions in surpluses,

but he doubled the national debt, in rough numbers. when president obama was sworn in, we had close to $11 trillion in the actual debt, that is debt, plus the deficit at the moment he was sworn into office. a lot of people want to blame him for that, but this is what he inherited. bush continued tax cuts, he declared two wars, and the combination of giving away revenue, spending more, including the cost of the wars, he doubled our debt. we understand he is a republican hero, but at some point in time, the math needs to add up.

republicans want $4 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. what they offer in their pledge is $16 billion in cuts. the math does not add up. host: chaka fattah talrepresents the second district in pennsylvania. next phone call. caller: when president obama was running for election, one of the problems he made was appealing the bush tax cuts. the top 1% of the people in the country own 26% of all the private assets in the country. i think letting the tax rates go back to where they were when president clinton was in office would not be a real hardship on them. even warren buffett said he pays less taxes than the secretary in

his office, proportionally. if he thinks it would be all right for him to pay a bit more in tax, obviously, he sees the discrimination in his country. that is my only comment. thank you. guest: i agree that we should let the tax cuts on the wealthiest 2% expired. i would like to see us take those revenues and use it for job creation, like senator warner of virginia has suggested. the other thing i would say about taxes is, you hear republicans say that some percentage of americans do not even pay income taxes. but when you challenge them, they say it is just income taxes, not general taxes.

this is just how they continually misrepresents the facts. the truth is, most people have their payroll tax. most people pay a higher percentage in the payroll tax that these upper income people pay at $250,000 and above. nobody in the country is getting away scot-free. if someone is not carrying their weight right now, in terms of the challenges the country faces, it is at this upper income level where people have used these exec -- exemptions to avoid taxation. on your commentsweet earlier about democratic

spending. guest: he is referring to the last few years of the bush administration. the congress spent lessees of those years than president bush requested in the budget. that is because democrats were determined to hold him to a better fiscal standard than his republican colleagues in years prior. there is a difference in the sense that the bush should ministration also, through their tax policies, brought the country to the brink of financial disaster and bush had to ask for a bailout which we called t.a.r.p. what this caller wants to suggest is somehow the bailout the democrat'son democrats bac

back, and it was done to keep us out of depression, but i think the need to be fair with each other. we need to talk about not who is to blame. even though i am perfectly prepared to show, republicans did what they did and all the angels are not on their side on this issue. more importantly, how are we going to get our country out of debt? i have a proposal that would get us out of debt in 20 years. i want to generate the notion that we should have a debate about that and how we should make our country. why should we be the largest creditor nation in the world to being the largest debtor nation in the world? host: you serve on the

appropriations committee. have you had earmarks in the past, will you continue to try to get them for your district? guest: i will always represent the interests of my district rather than seeking to find appropriated funds for the district, programs. in the house, they say they are going to ban all earmarks, so there will be no possibility for individuals to seek earmarks under the constraints for which they seem to be putting in. i will be working my friends in the senate to make sure the things i am interested in are considered in the process. if they ban them in the senate, i will call its administration to push for those things. there is no legislative body in the country where members are not going to push things they are interested in. if people believe that is going

to happen today, i have a bridge to know where they could be interested in buying. host: stand in south carolina. good morning. -- stan in south carolina. caller: i have been listening and i think there is a lot of misinformation coming from this man. everything is about tax cuts. everyone is at a certain tax level. if this is extended, they will be at the same level. there will be no cutting. you all want to say cutting. that has the connotation of reducing the tax. there is no tax cutting. secondly, congress has the last word in the money being spent.

do not mislead the folks. congress has the last word in signing off on any spending bill. thirdly, here we are with no budget for 2011. guest: first of all, you are absolutely correct. what president bush and the republican congress did is they put this forward as a tax cut. cbo scored them. in order to avoid a real cost to the budget, they put an expiration date on it. it expires at the end of this year. nothe question before the congress is whether to continue those or not. he wants to have a semantic argument. i agree. it is a question of whether these rates will stay in place or not. whether they will expire as

president bush designed to them to. they say we need these in order to have job growth. just look at the 10 years they have been in place and see if we have had job growth. and look at the years prior to that to see if we had job growth. you will see 23 million or so more jobs in the clinton years. but their argument is the need to have these tax rates go forward in order to have economic growth. these tax rates have gotten us to where we are now, an anemic job creation, on the brink of financial collapse, but this gentleman says the wisest thing we could do is not only going forward to do the same thing, but use words to make it sound more pleasant. host: ginger in the augusta, georgia. independent line. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. in reference to tax cuts, i do not think it has been brought up that the upper income people already get a 7.5% tax cut because they do not pay social security on the income above $106,000. that is never mentioned. guest: i think the debt commission missed the opportunity when talking about social security to suggest that we should have income above the cut off now calculated in social security. you are right. for people who earn above a certain amount, they do not have to pay the social security tax on net earnings. this is part of a more candid dialogue. maybe c-span can have a whole day where they can talk about how taxes actually affect americans. i think it could be informative.

host: the presumptive next speaker of the committee, if he gets a waiver from his caucus, jerry lewis, writes in "the washington times" key steps to balance the budget. just a couple of things he mentions -- would you agree to those? guest: first of all, emergency spending is a challenging situation. you have a hurricane, a real emergency, you have to deal with it. he is saying we should not use those items we know we have to budget for and call it an emergency. democrats complained about that when republicans put the cost of the census -- which is in the constitution that we have to do every 10 years -- whether we

should have budgeted for that in emergency spending. we need to be mindful of using this emergency gimmick. once it is an emergency, it does not count for the budget cap. so i agree with jerry lewis on that. the president said that he wanted a freeze on non-defense discretionary. republicans have called for a rollback. it seems it would have cut 25% or so from the fbi, education programs, the whole list of programs that could be problematic. at some point, we need a more honest discussion about what cuts can be made fairly, and where we might need additional revenue.

that is another point where the debt commission fell down on. this notion that we have two thirds cups, one third revenue, it should be half revenue, half cupsts. the truth is, i am not sure if there are cuts that can be made which could be required. host: next phone call. caller: i am a republican but i am not locked into the idea. i want to put an idea for about job creation and the economy. what does it sound like to build 20 hospitals in each state run by the government's and then somebody like me can pay $200 a month for their services? i would be glad to do that. it would also take care of

education if you had doctors work in the hospital who had their education paid for. what do you think guest: about that? -- but do you think about that? what do you think about that? guest: the president said that we want to do as much as we can to allow people to keep their current coverage. most people get their coverage through their job right now. we want to provide tax incentives for businesses so they can afford these benefits. the system that was designed in the affordable care act is really a building block of the current system.

having public hospitals would not fit into the context that our country works and, a system of capitalistic free enterprise. we have great hospitals that are run as nonprofits, organizations like sisters of mercy, for- profit hospitals, medical schools connected to universities who trained doctors. i think we have the best health care in the world. the biggest problem in the world is access to it by million two did not have access. -- who do n have access. we need to focus on cost containment and make sure it is affordable and make sure we control the cost better. host: florida. bob. thank you for waiting. caller: i want to know how much

it costs the american taxpayer to keep a congressman in office. this includes housing, staff costs, travel, supplies, committee compensations, your salary, everything that is included to keep you in office for one year. guest: there is no housing provided to members of congress. there is a cost for staff, salary, all of this is public intermission. if you want to call my office, we would be happy to point you to the data that would show you the numbers for any member of congress, including mine. the cost of our form of government is high, but it is the best form of government

known in the world. that is why, as americans, we have been willing to pay the price for a democratic process in which people can collect their own representatives. you can hold us accountable and both of us in or out. host: congressman fattah, thank you. coming up next, we turn our attention to the republican side of this argument. jeff flake of arizona will be with us. first, a news update. >> the head of the transportation security administration testified today about increased security measures at u.s. airports. he is expected to be asked about new pad down techniques that passengers have complained about being invasive. they will also focus on air cargo security measures following the terrorist attack

in yemen. former vice-president dick cheney and former secretary of state condoleezza rice speak today at the ground-breaking ceremony for the george bush presidential center at smu in dallas. you can hear that at 1130 eastern -- eleven o'clock 30 eastern. -- 11:30 eastern. the recount is ongoing in alaska. in remarks to katie couric, lisa murkowski said she would not support sarah palin for president. those are some of the latest

headlines. >> to in as american history tv offers a daylong symposium of a war. prominent historians give new perspective on the domestic and international impacts of the war. telling the american story, every weekend on c-span 3. >> the c-span that works. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking websites. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. it is washington your way. now available in more than 1 million homes.

host: jeff flake is here to talk about congressional earmarks. we got a number of people calling in who said it has been a good experience for them, getting money that they would otherwise not get. they are hesitant about this idea that republicans in the house and now maybe senate could go forward with this band. -- this ban. guest: oftentimes, we will create an account and authorize money for a certain program and then tell the agencies to have competition, award the grants based on merit. instead, congress would simply earmark that money.

the chances are, these groups receiving money could still get them, they would just have to compete with them. host: james inhofe went to the floor yesterday, defender of earmarks. we want to play his comments. >> president obama estimates a budget to congress which they either accept all or part of, or rejects all part of. if we reject it, we substitute the obama requests with what we think is better for america. the cost is the same. stopping earmarks does not save much money. people do not much understand this. we're simply taking what the president would have spent and changing the expenditure. host: congressman? guest: that is not exactly how it works. unless congress earmarks it, it cannot be spent, or unless the

president expresses, it cannot be spent, that is the common thinking. the truth is, congress conducts oversight. earmarks circumvents that hallmark of congress. we do little authorizing when we earmark. we do not have to take what the president says. he marking is not the only option. we could authorize programs, we can make sure the agency spends money on those programs, and then conduct oversight to make sure they are doing as we authorized. this notion that earmarking is an expression of congress's power of the purse is wrong. i do not think you can say every member of congress prior to 1990, before the 1980's, was not doing their job because they did not have earmarks.

they just did their job differently. host: earmarks take federal money and tailored it to fit their regional need. pure research shows -- pew research shows that, before and the election, if a candidate has a record of bringing government money to your state, are you more likely to vote for them? 53% said they were more likely. guest: the best test is the market test. look how many people in this last cycle brag about bringing home the bacon. very few. look at the number of appropriators who have lost their seats, those who traditionally get more than others. they lost their seats, often from scandal, may be because people did not like what they

did. host: you are seeking a seat on the appropriations committee. the you know where the votes stand, where -- do you know where the votes stand, where leaders will stand? guest: we have a committee that will make the decision. it looks good health now. there are few people seeking a spot on the appropriations committee, far fewer, at least, because it will no longer be the favor factory it was in the past. there will be some tough decisions that will have to be made in terms of cutting spending. lot of members, i do not think, have the stomach for that. host: are you opposed to the likes of representative jerry lewis who is seeking a waiver to continue to serve as the chairman of the appropriations committee?

he says he will go with the moratorium, but in the past has not liked them. second in line is congressman rogers. he also opposes earmarks. q you -- do you oppose someone like that meeting the committee? guest: if they are going to become chairman, which obviously that will happen, it will be someone who has done earmarking in the past. i thing we can work with anybody. congressman lewis and rogers have said that they favor the he moratorium. both believe i should have a spot on the committee. we can work with everybody. we have been given a charge to make some serious cuts and we are prepared to do that. host: in "the washington

post" -- are you pushing for that as well? guest: i want as many fiscal conservatives as we can have on the committee. this is just a tip of the spear when it comes to cuts. jack kingston would be a great chairman. i would rather not get into the leadership race. i would rather insure that we have a good number of individuals who will make those cuts. host: you said it is looking good for you. any idea of how it will work? guest: we know some of the steering members already. we will choose the rest next

week. after thanksgiving, then we will make decisions on individuals for committees. but there could be decisions. they could announce certain individuals who could have been appointed as well. host: waiting for phone calls to come in for jeff flake. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. we are continuing our conversation about congressional earmarks. jerry lewis, who want to be the appropriators chairman, rights today in "the washington times" -- how would this work, does it go far enough? guest: i think all those steps are necessary. on the emergency spending, we

will designate when there is an emergency. we know full well money will be spent, that includes for the war, senses, many other items. that needs to be done. -- census, many other items. we talked -- the speaker elect has talked about splitting these bills down, parse them out to make sure we can have up or down votes on spending. multi-year budgeting would help us as well. however, we can budget and spend more time doing oversight and authorizing for the spending. that is all the better. host: a tweet from maa viewer --

if it is such a small percentage, what should republicans be cutting? guest: they are a small percentage. those who defend the contemporary practice of earmarks will often make that point. well, if earmarks are a constitutional expression of our power, why would we only stop at 1%? they are a big distraction when we spend all of our time and resources earmarking 1% of the budget, we leave 99% to the administration, when we should be conducting oversight. the real oversight is not the waste of money, which it big, but the real problem is we neglect the oversight of the money. the tweeter is making the point that we need to cut other areas,

including defense, and i agree. there is no way we can be taken seriously if all we say is we are going to cut non-defense discretionary. that is such a small slice of the pie. you will not make a dent in the deficit or debt with that. it all needs to be on the table. entitlements in particular. host: are you concerned about adding to the deficit by letting the bush tax cuts be permit for everyone, including the wealthy? guest: if we want to grow ourselves out of this deficit, we need an economy that is growing. the last thing you do for a struggling economy is raise taxes. host: even if it adds to the deficit? guest: that is assuming that taxes are static. we know that they are not. particularly when you have

marginal rates, capital gains, sometimes you end up with more than you had in the beginning. we have to be careful of treating tax cuts the same as government spending. tax cuts simply allows people to ke more of their money. host: dave on the republican line. fresno, california. caller: i agree with you on earmarks. they are just a distraction. trust is the main issue. they say that jobs is the problem. the charlie rangel hearing, it is all closed doors, and they are going to sanction him. he should be kicked out. trust is the issue. we have to do something about these pensions.

$14 trillion will be our debt. that is not counting our pension obligations for public employees, social security. we are looking at over $100 trillion in debt. guest: you make a good point, the debt mentioned, $13 trillion, is only a fraction of the obligations we have. we have a lot more to answer for. trust is important as well. we republicans are on probation here. we did a prescription drug benefit that added $10 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years. it is tough to say that democrats are all to blame.

i think it will take awhile for voters and taxpayers to trust us again. that is probably a good thing. host: tom, washington. caller: i am cautiously optimistic hearing these two guests. i am looking forward to seeing the specifics of the republican proposal. it is all nice to say that we are going to leave more money in your pocketbook, but you look at a city like colorado springs, where they have cut taxes, and they cannot even keep their street lights going. let's be clear. if you talk about letting the tax cut to expire, we are talking about another 3% on the very highest level of income in this country. that is not a lot to ask for to get us out of a crisis.

host: let me show everyone this chart put out by the joint committee for taxation. in blue are taxes that democrats are fighting for, in red, taxes that republicans are fighting for. those that make $1 million and hire would get an average tax cut of $97,000. what is your reaction? guest: when you look at those paying the highest rate, often it is not just individuals. there are some businesses that incorporate. the notion that we are simply asking millionaires to pay more in taxes is not always the case. it is often small businesses who would otherwise invest that money to take a further cut. it is a bit of a simplistic view. we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. when you look at what we need to do, -- i never thought i would

be saying this -- but we need to look to the french, british, germans, in terms of courage and spending cuts. they have cut deeply and substantially. host: what are some specifics? the caller asked for some specifics. guest: 15 other republicans and i have signed onto paul ryan's road map for the future. there are specific items there, for example, with entitlements. we have to change the way that we calculate the entitlements for social security. we have to tag it to inflation rather than wage rates. also, the retirement age has to be raised over time. social security, we have to do more to let the free market discipline the cost there. that has to involve some form

of allowing us to not cut anybody in the program now, but in the future, make sure that we allow vouchers more and allow the free market to rein in the cost. we also have a farm subsidy, $21 billion a year. not only is it subsidies we should not be paying out, it affects our trade relationships as well. we want to grow the economy, we have to export, and we cannot have the farm bill prohibiting some of that trade. host: allen in virginia. caller: i am listening to the show, what are earmarks, what is the tea party? guest: someone must have been sleeping over the past few weeks. host: maybe a bit of sarcasm there.

guest: congress gives us the power to allocate spending. but that should be committees as a whole, not individual members saying i want this money for this company in my district, this museum in my district. i do not think that was ever envisioned by the founding fathers. it has done been the practice in congress. it is only a temporary phenomenon. it is not good for the institution. it seems far too much power to the executive. when we focus on 1% to much, we ignore the rest. host: this person e-mails in, challenging you on tax cuts.

guest: not all tax cuts paid for themselves. the right ones do. for example, in the late 1990's, we had a cut in capital gains on paper. that should have resulted in a $50 billion loss to the treasury over three years. i think we had a $150 billion gain because of increased economic activity. you have that with certain tax cuts. the writer is saying that tax cut do not always pay for themselves, they are right, but some do. the last thing you should do in the middle of a recession is raise taxes on anybody. host: republican argument is if you do that, it impacts small business owners. this person tweets in -- guest: i do not agree with that.

it depends on how you classified "small business." he may be classified it a lot smaller than i am. host: so what is it? guest: i do not know. it must be smaller. social security, i do not know the figures here. if you look at the road that, we come into balance over a number of years. there are two ways to do that. raise the retirement age. we have to do that. it makes sense. also, you change the way you calculate benefits by tagging increases to inflation and other than wage rates. that is a slower increase. -- rather than wage rates. with medicare, if you dr. =

voucherize it, it could save significant money over time. we are going to have to cut defense. the notion last year that during the appropriations process, among the one or two that we did, defense, and we allowed a second engine for the f-35 -- which is a billion dollar program -- which should not do simply because it creates jobs in some districts. we cannot continue to look at defense as something that is just there to boost our economy. we have to look at it as, do we defend the country or not? we cannot continue to spend the kind of money on defense as we have been. host: next phone call on the

republican line. harry. good morning. caller: good morning. a few people ago stole my thunder when it comes to earmarks and the trust factor. i think a large portion of the united states the electorate is looking for trust. i think term limits is where you need to go. i am an unhappy republican, to say the least. i do not think either the democrats or republicans have the middle class in mind in much of anything you do. republicans are looking out for the highest earners, democrats are looking out for their electorate, the lowest earners. the middle-class gets squeezed for everything we have got. guest: you mentioned the trust factor. look at what washington has done

over the past decade. we have run up the debt. we have a couple of members of congress in jail right now for dealing under the table. we have things like earmarks that lend themselves to ridicule about spending. i do not blame the caller for a lack of trust. all i can say is we will move ahead and do the best we can. we republicans recognize this election was not necessarily because people love us. it was because they were not satisfied with the direction of the country. host: shelley in charleston, west virginia. caller: i have a comment and a question. are you saying you want to get rid of earmarks? guest: yes, i am. the contemporary practice of

earmarking. individuals getting pork for their district. caller: ok, well, if you get rid of earmarks, how are things done in people's districts? guest: most of the spending in districts is actually formula funding. for the agencies have a program where we have authorized -- or the agenes have a program where we have authorized, guaranteed a request. then the money is doled out that way. some members of congress say that they do not like the terms being used, those faceless bureaucrats. we know better how the money can be used. if we do not like how the money is allocated, we should not allocate the money. we have the power in congress to

authorize those programs more narrowly or broadly than they currently are. that is what we should do instead of saying we do not like how the bureaucrats are spending money so we will have a parallel program in congress where we directly hand out money. often times, we will authorize an account to be set up, a program to be run by an agency to give out grants to research agencies. if our agency did not get a grant, we step in and the market anyway. oftentimes, by the time the agency gets to that account, every dollar has been earmarled. absent markers -- has been earmarked. those that are necessary,

constitutional, we should authorize the programs, and make sure the agencies and of the money in an equitable way. in terms of merit, competition, rather than us circumventing the process and doing it ourselves. members of congress love to cut ribbons. we love to hand out money for a bike path, museum, and then be there. it is like twice cooked pork. if you can get a program for which you received funding named after yourself, you are doing pretty well for yourself. but it is not good for the institution and it leads to overspending. host: don in charlotte, north carolina. caller: you republicans just do not get it. you keep saying we need to look to the republicans on the way to

do things, i agree with you on that. we need to look to the french, what they have done with their social security. the people rioted against the government because they were raising the social security age. i agree with you. we need to look to the french on that. also, you talk about the need to cut taxes. it is very simple. if you raise taxes, and this is coming from a low income person. if it was not for obama giving us tax breaks, you can create more income for yourself. if you do not raise taxes, you will not get enough money. people depend on that money.

host: i think we have your point. host: i think we have your point. your reaction? guest: at some point, you have less revenue if you raise taxes than if you lower them. the question is, where is that point? where is the point where lower in taxes actually brings in more revenue? not every tax cut brings in more revenue, but some do. particularly when you are in a recession, you should not raise taxes. host: this brings up what our previous guest had said, and that is, smiling and telling us that earmarks will be in budget, they will put it in and force the same agencies. if you think any elected official is not going to try to get money for his or her district, then you are mistaken.

guest: i think they will try. the difference is, prior to 1990, -- are rare 1990, i think, there were just about 100 earmarks in all the appropriation bills total. by 2006 at think we had reached 14,000. some members of congress to look at that as a point of pride, that we have democratized the process. it is not just the committee chairman calling an agency head and saying i have this project. i think it is awful. at least, it is that way, is on the margins. this way, you have thousands and thousands of your marks. and how linda -- hundreds of congressman making those requests. i take the fourth point on its face, but when you look at the practice of earmarking, how it happens, virtually every

appropriations bill shows the disproportionate distribution of the earmarks. if you're a committee chairman or in a greater, you get the sometimes 60% or 70% of the year marks. a small percentage of the body are getting a huge percentage of the year marks. i do not think anyone can argue that because you are a committee chairman now that you understand your district and you are trained bureaucrats. yes, members will continue to try to get money for their districts. and you advocate for your district, but you should not do it at the cost of simply having programs that should otherwise be competitive or merit-based and constantly get the money because you can't. host: -- because you can't. host: -- because you can.

host: next phone call, curtis, ark., james on the democratic line. go ahead. caller: i would like to know what type of benefits and salaries you receive. how many years you have to stay in office for you to receive those benefits? host: are you talking about pensions, caller? caller: yes. guest: there is an e-mail that comes around that i get every couple of months that tells members of congress who retire after one term and receive their full salary for the rest of their lives and they do not pay social security and a lot of other myths. members of congress have virtually the same benefits as any federal employee. perhaps that used to be the case that there were these lavish

benefits, but those have been cut down greatly. we have the same benefit packa as any feder employee, really, the same as our staff and anyone else. host: wilson, and good morning. inler: i'm very interested your comment on where you think the american people, are going to stand. are they going to have the courage if you make the coverage that need to be made? -- the if you make the cuts that need to be made? we all know that it should come from social security and medicaid and the military. those are the bignes. i am retired military, by the way. im concerned tt if you people have the courage -- and i will be specific in one area. as a mine, i receive a cost- of-living allowae. are the american people going to

have the courage to for wrote those cost-of-living? those cuts are going to have been made in those areas? or are they going to say, everybody but mind? guest: the caller makes a great point. i have been at town hall meetings and tea party meetings and other meetings in my district and i will be struck that the whole meeting i will be told that i have to be fiscally conservative and cut these programs or that. but just a few weeks ago when i was leaving, somody pulled me aside and said, what about what we are not givinpartl security? are you going to vote for that payment? -- not getting for social security? are you going to vote for the payment?

people have to be ready, but right now, we do not have a choice. i think the congress tends truffe some of the courage to act when we have to, when -- tends to summon up the courage to act when we haveo. we do not know where the fiscal clifis. we just do not know. i think it behooves us right now to start making some of these cuts. host: in the "new york times", the study -- the story this morning is about how the grinch could go -- the credit crunch could go on as well. the next phone call is from don in new mexico, independent line. caller: i does want to ask a

question and i would like to go on from there. the question is, do you know the effective tax rate for the 5 toparners in the united states? guest: the effective tax rate for the 50 top earners? i would assume they are paying the top marginal rate, which is just out a 40%. caller: wrong, you are wrong again. the effective tax rate is 16.6%. those people earn their income on capital gains and dividends. on those capital gains and dividends they turn at 15%. those people do not even pay into the social security fund because they permit -- they pay on unearned interest. how the wretched people in this country do not pay -- the richest people in this country do not pay social security and they do not pay regular tax rate. when you talk about the skewed tax system, that is an exampl of our the richest in this

country have all of this money. are they investing in jobs? are they investing in all the things that americans want? no, they are investing in themselves. host: are you talking york hedge fund managers? of those people that whatever -- are you talking about hedge fund managers? those people that whatever they make they invest? an ira i'm talking about statement. at the irshey say that e 50 top earners only paid 15%. there was a bill in congress to move that carried interest from 15% to real earnings. here we have paulson who had a hedge fund called paulison and company and he made $37 billion on the subprime crisis.

and what happened subsequently to that is that he had $3.7 billion. he paid 15% on $3.7 billion and republicans were unwilling to tax that carried interest at real earnings. guest: the caller makes the point that those individuals, that this is money for themselves and it is not helping the economy, apparently. the fact that they are paying on capital gains shows that the money is being invested in the economy. this notion that you are making millions of dollars, or simply sitting on that money all for yourself and is now being circulated into the economy, if we know that they are paying this, it is because the money is circulating the economy. it is not as high a rate as individual tax rates, and i do not think anybody is suggesting

-- maybe the caller is, that we tax capital gains at 39%. i do not think we should. host: certain jobs, those had fought -- hedge fund managers? guest: for people who are investing in the economy, we shouldot care where that money is coming from as long as it is invested in the economy. it is very difficult to play class warfare with capitals games -- capital gains. and we need more invested in the economy. if it comes from people who are paying at aower rate because they are paying on capital gains, i think we should be grateful the money is going into the economy and not always look for ways to punish people because they have been able to invest more in the economy rather than take it as individual income. host: raleigh, north carolina,

thomas, northcott -- democratic line. ller: congressman, my question for you is, given that the black farmers, were dealing with the exploitation, why is that they have their farmland being taken away? host: are you familiar? guest: some of that is being settled and some of it is still coming up. the gentleman made the point that some of these farmers are losing their land. if he is making the point that the farm bill is not helping farmers to much, i think he is right.

i think it is inhibiting our ability to trade. and just to talk to the assert -- absurdity of it, we subsidize, and hugely in this country, so much that we were sued in the wto by some of our trading partners, brazil in particular. theyot a judgment against the spirit in order to get brazil not to pursue the case, we are -- in order to -- they got a judgment against us. in order to get brazil not to pursue the case, we are subsidizing brazilian cotton. host: mary is a republican in tampa, florida. caller: good morning, congressman. i worked from a company f 20 years ani lo my b in 2008, in may. i was there a lost my job

because of the construction -- i would say i lost my job because of the construction downturn. i have been looking for a job since then. i have worked for a temp agencies. i am making $45 a week compared to my $700 per week salary 2 years ago. i thought i would be there until i retired. i am very disappointed. a couple of things have frustrated me. now i have bad credit. an employer could not hire me because of my bad credit. i have had seven companies turn me down now strictly because of my bad credit, not because they did not want me. the thing that frustrates me is the amount of products now made in china. i was watching c-span the other day and i sought a senator from

northakota and he was talking about a company that closed down in ohio and moved to china. i have not bought a new pair of shoes for two and a half years. i thought, i'm going to go get a pair of shoes and i went to the mall. everything was made in china or india. i said, forget it. i hope that congress, when you guys go back to work in january that youo not get bogged down in repealing the obama care right away. please, do something about getting jobs here. the middle class is gone. guest: i thank the caller. she is from florida and i'm from arizona and we have both felt the impact of the housing csis

substantially. the best thing we can do is get the economy back on track. by saying that, i'm not saying that congress create jobs. but we need to create an environment in which jobs can be created. in order to do that we need a tax and ituri environment that is conducive to the creation of jobs. -- we need a tax and regulatory environment that is conducive to the creation of jobs. we have one of the highest tax rates in the world, so that makes it easy for companies to locate elsewhere. 20 to make sure we have a good tax and regulatory -- we need to make sure we have a good tax and regulatory environment. pretty soon we will be paying virtually everything, all the revenue that will be coming in will service the national debt. host: congressman, thank you. we're going to turn our attention to the impact of the

2010 elections on higher education. but first, a news update from c- span radio. >> the labor department says the producer price index rose to 0.4% last month, that is the same as in september and august. analysts had expected a larger increase. colston prices have increased for the fourth straight month -- wholesale prices have increased for the fourth straight month. the congressional oversight panel investigating foreclosure transactions finds that severe threats remain that have the potential to damage financial stability. the report is being published on the same day that the senate banking committee will hear testimony on documentation problems. it will air live on c-span radio at 2:30 p.m. eastern. south carolina senator jim demand, a republican, complemented mcconnell for wanting to end so-called

earmarks of an attached to congressional legislation. he said he credits the kentucky republican with listening to fellow gop lawmakers, and also to voters, who showed their anger at the polls this election. michelle bachmann, a republican from minnesota, called senator mcconnell's stand "a very good sign that republicans are listening." the lame duck congress begins its second day today. two new members will be voting. one of them, democrat joe manchin, tells politico that doesn't know if he will back harry reid as senate majority leader. he made the remarks minutes after he was sworn in yesterday. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the saturday, to an end as american history tv offers a daylong symposium on the impact

of the war. the coverage starts saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on american history t.a.r.p., telling the american story. -- american history tv, telling the american story. the c-span networks, available to you on television, on-line and retakes c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicles. it is washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable and provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: dan hurley is the director of state relations for the american association of state colleges and universities, here to talk about the impact of the

2010 elections on higher education. you did a report on this. what did you find out in the short term? guest: release mdot message by electing a wave of fiscal conservatives at the -- if it really sent a message b electing a wave of fiscal conservatives at the state and local level. when you look at the platform and the principles espoused by all the candidates, they were touting reduced spending and, of course, america's public colleges and universities are anxiously awaiting what these spending plans are heading into the new year. host: deposit on the state level or the governable? or what is the impact on both the state banned federal level? guest: -- the state and federal level? we had a bad number of

governors, about 12 incoming gornors, for example, that ok "no new tax" pledges comin into the new year. a lot of these governo, ohio, pennsylvania, florida, are already coming into january 2011 facing multi-billion dollar shortfalls. public colleges and universities receive a significant amount of their revenues from state funds, supplemented by student tuition dollars. a big concern right now -- all of the policy issues right now are general operation provided by states. at the federal level, certainly, republicans have put forth their pledge to america, looking to roll back spending, or at least cap it can shave about $1 million of spending. they have not been specific about how they will do that. there is concern, especially on the pell gnt program, whicis the major program for federal

financial aid for studts. host: about 18% of under greg students in 2009-10 received pell gnt dollars to the tune of about $20 billion this means what for students trying to seek a higher educion? guest: hopefully, it wil not mean any significant change. the bottom line is that we want to encourage students to enroll in secondary education and we do not want any policies to mitigate that. i think we are keeping our eyes on state support and ste financial aid programs, certainly. there are several states that have decreased their dollars for state-based financial aid programs. from a student perspective, we are trying to enter college

affordability in the next several years. host: according to this chart in 2009-10, the federal government provided about 40% in federal pell grant aid. how can this country afford any more than that? guest: i will make the argument that you really cannot afford not to. it is about having a very innovative, skilled work force. the best return on taxpayer dollars, whether of the state level or the federal level,, is on education, and a special the polka-post secondary education. -- and especially post secondary education. i think police of the fighting

students attending -- fully subsidizing -- i think fully subsidizing students attending college is worthwhile. the primary trend that has taken place is really a cost shift in who pays for colleges. traditionally, it has been states providing a financial support to state colleges and universities. in the last several years we have seen a reduction in state support across many states, and of course, that is in funnelled off to students and families. when you look at what public colleges and universities pay on a per-student -- i'm sorry, spend on a per-student basis, it has been relatively flat of the last several years. and yet, students pay more and more every year. the result is a cost-shift from states to students and their

families. host: the first caller is from new york, go ahead. caller: you will love me because i'm a die-hard liberal. if the government wants to start making its money back, it needs to start taxing. you can get arrested for walking across the city state campus. it is considered on private property -- the suny state campus. it is considered private property. without a pell grant i could not accomplish much of a higher education. it is time for these colleges to not only be viewed as public entities with multiply -- mostly students paying the money and from mostly an upper-middle- class backgrounds. it is a bit unnerving to find out that i have to pay for what is considered a public university art of my own pocket

and then i cannot afford to attend it. it does not matter how hard i work or how smart i was, it does not there for me. there is a lot of money going into it and it must be going to the professors -- and i do not know who it is going to, but it is not coming back to me, that is for sure. mr. host: early? mr. hurley? guest: everyone is entitled to their opinion. but the public universities and colleges, especially those in new york, and do a tremendous amount of help with research and they do much work with the

public and communities. when you look at the demographic trends iran the world -- or around the world, we need to do everything we can in the united states as a society to get more younger adults into the pipeline. not everyone needs a four-year degree, but someone -- but everyone needs some kind of secondary degrees. host: are you concerned that it will not meet the needs of someone like that last caller? guest: sure, it is on the minds of colle presidents. they're doing everything they can -- i say that, they are doing a lot to build in

efficiencies, productivity, cost containment. but we are also at the same time careful to build in academic quality. and universities are world renowned for the work that they do. we want to make sure that we do not appreciate the value of a four year degree in america. host: here is an article about private schools. all this is a recent phenomenon. how much do public universities and college presidents make on average? est: i do not know the exact numbers, but it is a lot less than that. it little bit of context, public college presidents do not come anywhere near that. and even with the private

university once, is a marketplace. these people are probably bringing in a potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in per year in research money, foundation monies, etc. it is the prerogative of their boards. and if you consider it in terms of wall street, it is still pretty small. host: next call from pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: i live in pennsylvania and a lot of the money at penn state and others seem to go to the football. i love football, but when you think of what salary is that the coach makes. guest: they are important in the big picture in terms of moving me -- they are important, but in

the big picture in terms of moving the american economy forward, it is smaller. in terms of subsidizing teacher pensions, i do not think that happens often. i think there are a few select programs that i am not familiar with. in the grand scheme of things, all of the hundreds and hundreds of public colleges out there, very few would be guilty of exorbitant coaches' salaries, etc. host: are those football stadiums, those sorts of things, are they revenue streams for colleges? guest: when you looked at as an institutional leader or a governing board, you have to look at the big picture.

one fascinating thing is the visibility that comes from having a good sports team. as an example, locally here at george mason university, the men's basketball team, a cinderella team, went to the final four in 2006, i think. a relatively little known institution at the time. you can go to washington state and ask an elderly woman about george mason and that she would say, yeah, i'm familiar with it because of things like that. it raises demand and visibility, etc. host: we are talking about higher education, the impact of the 2010 elections. we have divided our lines as we normally do, but we also want to hear from our college students. you can di in at the number on the screen. kirk in texas.

caller: good morning. i hava two-part question. the host asked the guest, why does cost keep going up and you said more was being put on the student and the parents. i would like to know why the st in general keeps going up. not who pays more and who pays less, but the overall cost? and if you were subsidized by to the taxpayers, would you not be forced to lowe t cost and be more efficient? guest: a good question on the cost. public universities, all universities really, are very human-intensive enterprises. something le 80% of all the mone tt they spend are essentially on faculty and sff and salaries. and thgh salaries are a broader market, a basket of goods that you can buy.

it is a little bit technical, but when you think about things like health care, those things have been going up dramatically. that has led to cost increases. another thing that has actually decreased in the last years, but was a big point in the last few years was energy. heeding a college campus in the wintertime or cooling it in -- he teen a college campus in the wintertime or cooling it -- the college campus in the wintertime or clinic in the summertime is a big expense. -- cooling it in the summertime is a big expense. host: next call, jack, go ahead. caller: i graduated from college in 1955 and it cost me less than $1,000 per year for a room, tuition and books.

i graduated in four years and i went and got my master's degree. there wawhere no pell grants at all. i'm just trying to figure out why the same education today costs $35,000 at the school of that i went to and graduated from in 1955. guest: times have changed. congratulations on going to those schools. certainly, costs have gone a. but there is no doubt -- acosta have gone up. but there is no doubt -- certainly, costs have gone up, but there is no doubt that there is a focus on amenities, especially with private institutions. student burnie in the most capable, high academic achieving students -- bringing in at the

most capable, high academic achieving students, that requires the amenities that they want. that has caused the price of college to increase a little bit higher than what it might have been. but it goes back to, really, you take the number one priority and that goes back to faculty and researchers. there is a competitive marketplace in the u.s. and beyond. it is really attracting and retaining high end talent at the faculty and research lago that i think is the chief of -- at the research level but i think is the chief reason that tuition has gone up. host: jack, go ahead. caller: i think we can look at

the general requirements that a lot colleges have. there are things we can accomplish in high school by extending the hours and days. what is the percentage of the costs in running a college or university has associated with the general requirements? guest: i do not know the specific costs. i understand your frustration with having to take some liberal arts courses in your freshman year when your ultimate goal is to be a scientist or engier. there certainly is pressure to cap the number of credits required to graduate. most institutis have at 120. there are some that make sure they do not go past that.

i think the argument remains very strong that while as a teacher or a scientist or engineer or researcher you may not think that a course or two in psychology or the classics really relate directly, but i think there is a lot of evidence out there that having a broader world view and perspective will benefit you both in the workplace and society and come back to be very beneficial throughout your life. host: mitch tweet in -- guest: i would argue that quality has not failed. of all the quality measures on the college campus, it is really about students coming out first and foremost. for one thing, i think the one

thing that all academic institutions have done is to build a fire wall around the quality of student learning. host: sharon, the democratic line, good morning. caller: i was just listening to a caller before debts at college was only for the upper middle class. i think -- that said colge was only for the upper middle class. i think she has it completely wrong. i remember a few years ago as a single parent i live in public housing and i finally made the choice to go back to school. i was not winning the lottery and drug dealing was not working and things like that. i talked to my friend next door and i said, let's go down and get a loan. he would not do it, but i had to

work very hard. but i got my master's degree. the now and then 50's -- in 50's, $50,000 per year. host: can i ask your debt load? caller: it is big, but they have programs now were you only have to pay a percentage of your income. right now i am unemployed, so i do not pay anything, but when i become employed, yes i will have to pay. but it has been worth it to me. is the only way to get out of the lower middle class. guest: a gat story the and iteeds tbe ver much firmed. if you look at this post- recession era, the earnings gap for those with a four-year degree and a high-school

diploma, it doubled in just the last three years. the unemployment right now for a college degree worker is one -- is less than one-half of what it is for those with a high school degree. it is individuals like this caller here that are absolutely tegral to the health and vitality of our state's overall. we have a need for tens of millions of workers, actually about 18 million to be specific by 2020. right now we are falling about 300,000 degrees short annually keep up with degraphic trends. we need to ge me students from lower and middle income into college, and also, a lot of adult learners as well, people in their 30's and 40's and 50's. again, it is not all about a master's degree.

a one-years a ticket, a two- year college degree can be a relatively low-cost expenditure and good value. host: we are talking about the impact of the election of 2010. the new incoming chairman is likely to be, we do not know yet, but likely to be jon klein of minnesota. what is the impact of this? guest: i would say there were not expecting any huge policy reforms in the next session of congress. there has actually been considerable reform in the last couple of years. the biggest thing that took place was ending the bank-based student loan system federally and directing all money to direct lendi pgram -- a

federal direct lending program. that saved billions of dollars. our nuer one priority is addressing havingongress addresthe current $5.7 biion shortfall in the bill grant program. this recession has resulted in more students going back to school, and unfortunately, because of decreasing household incomes and unemployment, there is just a huge bowl of people that are eligible for t help grant.the telegrapell and one thing that can increas from here ons that an increase in the for-profit sector. republican leadership in the house is not exactly on the same page as the democratic

leadership. host: portland, ore., jeff on the republican line. caller: i am a disgruntled republican and i think the general population thinks that education is extremely important. i graduated its from uc- berkeley in 1980 and my tuition back then was $2,500 per year. i would consider myself right now the working poor. i have not been able to get a job for quite some time even though i'm an mba. my wife is working. my daughter has had a great education in high school and she is a freshman at a private college in new york. it was cheaper for her -- she is in one of the most expensive colleges in the united states as far as tuition and room and board. it came to about $60,000 per year. however, our total out of pocket is only $9,000.

to keep her in our state, university of oregon would have cost $20,000. the telegram and is extremely important to us and we never want to see it -- the pell grant is extremely important to us and we never want to see it cut, but i'm seeing a number of them being directed to technical colleges and things like that. by seeing a number of ads where they say, we will get you in and is free and that kind of thing. i would like to see it not necessarily tied to technical schools unless they have a certain graduation rate. guest: rick comments. you should testify. we're -- great comments. you should testify. we are very concerned about

that. it is really about having accountability in all federal programs and to make sure that students that received aid to go to technical schools, and for- profit schools, actually get help in the workplace and most importantly, are not saddled with debt upon graduation. there has been some effort in congress to try to mitigate that. meanwhile, there is a tremendous number of mom-and-pop type propriary schools taking advantage of a certain population. it is an issue of consumer protection and one that does need to be addressed. host: here is another comment by a -- by way of tweet.

houston, texas, go ahead. caller: i am a colge professor and i teach american history. reading is a required course. thank you for your comments on required courses. my question to you is this, does your group have lobbyists in the state houses and in washington d.c. to work on some of these politicians to get them to abolish a lot of the perks that they enjoy what education is taking cuts, and to funnel the money they are spending on themselves toward hire education? -- higher education? guest: you bring up a good point. i do not think we will see too

many lobbyists biting the hand that feeds them. we have the texas higher education coordinating board as one of the many entities that rks to advance support and financial aid for students. that is the texas higher education coordinating board in austin. you could contact them. host: the "financial times" reports that were the money goes, the top 10 recipients of earmark money, university of alabama,, mississippi state university, iowa state university -- so, there are rmarks going to these public universities and colleges. why and what kind of money are we talking about? guest: the highest -- i'm guessing there are a few members of congress that might have links back to those states or

congressional districts that the universities are in. the remarks range anywhere from -- i would think mostly supporting research endeavors as well as teaching, learning, and research. it will be interesting, the call to pare back earmarks comes out from time to time. host: what impact you think it will have on higher education for public schools? guest: it will certainly have some impact. all of the stretch that out there in terms of american public education -- all of the strata out there in terms of american public education, it is a relatively refined list of recipients of your remarks. it can be a big deal in terms of earmarks for institutions.

it can provide academic programming for high-end jobs. host: chris is calling from virginia, go ahead. caller: i just have a comment really quick. there is a myth going around that college degrees are a key to wealth. i would say, no, actually having a job is a key to wealth, not a piece of paper. more and more college graduates are finding themselves unemployed or underemployed. i think the focus should be jobs, not having a piece of paper. also, i want to say that as far as the gentleman, mr. hurley mentioned that people with

college degrees have a higher wage. you want to be making in income that makes your investment worthwhile. i think the gentleman need to address the great inflation. grades are getting higher and higher because standards are getting lower and lower. fastow is pushing people through the system. -- fafsa is pushing people through the system. guest: i think the first issue is much more important and i would, again, have to disagree. i think that all the data in the large, big picture trends out there dictate that some kind of college degree or post

secondary credential is important. the work force of today and tomorrow is going to require, demand a higher level of knowledge, skills, and abilities. there is, of course, all of this focus about jobs going overseas to china and india. and a lot of those jobs are of the jobs that you are probably talking about, the low to middle-skilled jobs, going overseas. and yes, there is this bifurcated work force where there is a lot lower skilled, burger king type jobs as well. but the education premium, the annual income based on how much education one has is just remarkably telling. on the great inflation -- grade inflation, i think that is

more of an issue on the k-12 level than the higher educational. there are a lot of systems and policies in place to prevent that. i do have to put in a plug for a big thing that is going on in american education, and it is a great effort by our nation's governors and the state k-12 superintendents' called the new common course standards. i think it is a new education reform and it is an increasing of the river involved in english and mathematics starting in the next couple of years -- theincreasing of the recorrigor english and mathematics starting in the next couple of years. host: syracuse, new york, bob, democratic line, thanks for waiting.

caller: good morning. john vader said, "where are the jobs -- john boehner said, where are the jobs" and i have watched on tv and it does not show any workers. all these machines are making everything that we use. i think the college students better be setting the financial -- steadiness the financial -- college students better be studying the financial. i am 76 and when i was growing up, there were a lot of jobs. there was an abundance of jobs around. host: any reaction? guest: he has been reinforcing the theme i have been trying to press on here. americans need to participate in

education just because of the economy that we are in. it is a lot more competitive. host: mark in toronto, go ahead. caller: i am soon to be a ph.d. student graduating and i'm looking to get your prospects on jobs for faculty members considering the cutbacks that are going on at the university level. guest: first question is what is your discipline? caller: business administration. guest: you can breathe a sigh of relief, i think. is the social sciences that are hurting. if you are an anthropologist, you are hurting. business, you are in pretty good shape. business schools and colleges of business, they are maintaining strong enrollments and unlike some other disciplines, almost every four-year public colleges

in america has a college of business. i think you'll find job prospects pretty good and high education ranks. in terms of state cutbacks for her education, it has been pretty pervasive from coast to coast. you are probably safest may be in the center from north dakota all the way through tx, but even there, they have seen some recession impact from higher education. caller: i have a follow-up question. i have noticed a lot of universities have been moving to the use of tha5 add john to faculty. -- the use of adjunct faculty. can you talk about that? guest: i have worked s an adjunct from time to time

myself. it is a trend in cost savings. obviously, they cost less. but i think there is a threshold that we need not cross and we are probably getting pretty close. there have been some studies out there that would suggest that we put an adjunct into these huge gateway freshman courses and learning outcomes can be a bit lower verses if you had a full- time faculty member in their teaching the course. there's a lot of study, research, and debate on that issue. and it is one that we need to pay a lot of attention to and make sure there are appropriate policies to make sure that students learning is not infringed upon by having too many hotadjunct professors teaching -- too many adjunct

professors teaching. host: next call from new jersey. caller: could you please comment on a new rolaine that will allow illegal aliens to pay in state tuition -- a new ruling that will allow illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition? i thought you had to be a resident in order to get in- state tuition in all these 50 states. guest: that was an issue that came up in allowing all of these undocumented students, individuals that were brought to the country by their parents illegally as young children. that is senate -- a continued debate ground a country. and what happened yesterday with the california supreme court is probably the biggest policy change on that front in quite awhile. there are currently 10 states in the u.s. that allow public

institutions of higher education to provide in-stayed rates to undocumented students. -- in-state rates to undocumented students. there was a lawsuit in california contesting the issue. yesterday, the ruling was forimous consent that is oka states to utilize the policy. the association that i represent, 420 colleges and universities, supports that policy. not everyone agrees, but we believe everyone, especially anyone who was brought not of their own volition as youngsters, we want to do everything we can to get everyone to participate in post secondary education because they are more likely to be employed and pay into taxpayer dollars

and less likely to need health care. turning to the federal level, one of the big issues right now is whether or not the remaining lame duck session, if the senate majority leader harry reid is going to bring up that federal policies known as the dream act that would facilitate residency either through high school graduation or military service. there's a lot that is uncertain at the state policy level and whether or not they can provide in state rates. this decision out of california today will clarify that a little bit. host: thanks for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: "washington journal" will return tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. weoy