lame-duck agenda of congress with jake sherman. and a look at the debt reduction plan from pete domenici and jake sherman. after that, we will talk to clifford winston about his latest book "last exit." about the privatization of the u.s. transportation system. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" on this monday, november 29, 2010. congress returns. on the agenda, whether to extend the bush era tax cuts. also a food safety bill, the start treaty and the battle over don't ask-don't tell. this evening, vice president

biden will swear in senator elect mark kirk of illinois at the capitol. the headlines -- the fallout over yesterday's release of hundreds of thousands of documents revealing u.s. diplomacy by the website wikileaks. many of the cables, some considered secret, come from the obama administration but also stretch back decades. they showed diplomats -- diplomats and the bus officials take of foreign leaders and the role of diplomats abroad and concerns about a nuclear iran. our question, does the wikileaks release hurt u.s. diplomacy? the numbers to call -- you can also e-mail us. and you can find us on twitter. at "the new look york times," one of the

newspapers the wikileaks information went to. "the new york times" said it got this from a source that had information about the cables given to wikileaks and now starting to trickle out on line. many stories. let's get started with this.

looking at the implications of this, the story goes on to say -- looking at what the cables had to say, going down to another "new york times" article. in talks about in late may of 2000 and is valid defense minister made a visit to the congressional delegation to send a pointed message to the president.

we will get to more of that story in a moment. but let's look at what this reveals about the role of american diplomats. the question this morning is, does this release hurt u.s. diplomacy? this piece is called boring the line between two and diplomat. -- blurring the line. let's get to the phones to hear your opinions. does the wikileaks released hurt diplomacy? been up from baltimore. id -- independent line. caller: i do think the release will hurt american in a sense that these types of questions posed by information released

impact our national security. they become an embarrassment to america. because of problems diplomatically in terms of what people can expect. and they can essentials the undermine the way diplomats do business. i think that's we should look much harder at prosecuting the release of this information, and that we should have reason to expect that professional media organizations will take into consideration the impact on a countries national security in the building these types of information. and i think we should be more aggressive and more upset with what the publishers, wikileaks, are doing. host: would you like to see the prosecution of the person who actually leaked these documents from the united states or also prosecution of julian assange and the people that wikileaks? caller: i think the latter.

obviously the person who is alleged to have leaked this information is actually going through the court martial process. we should expect some discernment from the professionals at wikileaks. just because we have information doesn't mean we should publish it. they have said that they think the truth -- the truth is arrived at by having a discussion on the content of these leaks. that may be the case, but the truth has to be weighed against the damage it can do. and i think that prosecution certainly should be assessed very carefully and probably gone forward on something like this. host: let us leave it there. let us go to hank, independent caller from michigan. caller: thank you for c-span. host: go right ahead. you are live on the air. the caller: i want to say to the

president -- i love this guy and he is a tough man, he is smart, but wikileaks, that is the job for the cia. i am tired of this by showing up doing things that he just wants to do, and puts our soldiers, our brave americans over there fighting. it is a sacrifice and it weakens our national security. host: our first caller mentioned the possibility of prosecution for julian assange, the founder of wikileaks. let us look at where this information may initially have come from. "the new york times" said the possibility of a large number of diplomatic cables may become public has been discussed since may.

let's go on to kentucky. jeffrey on our democrats' line but caller: i don't think he ought to be prosecuted because the united states of america should not do anything they should be ashamed of. host: do you think this will help -- hurt u.s. diplomacy or position overseas? caller: the united states believes it can run the whole world. you cannot do that. if you don't want something published, don't say it. that is just like me talking about somebody. if i'm not man enough to stand behind what i say i should say it.

that is the way the united states ought to be. they want to take over everything. i am a citizen and i love the united states but they are wrong on this issue. host: ok. let's take a look at what some of the cables show, what these releases revealed. here are a couple of book points from a "the new york times." and eventual collapse of north korea. united states considered commercial inducements to china. when american diplomats pressed other countries to refund of detainees the bickering players in "let's make a deal." jumping down to another one --

let's get to arizona. brian, republican. what do you think? caller: i think there is no question that there is the potential it could hurt u.s. diplomacy diplomacy by its very nature involves a thousand different subtleties. and diplomacy deserves to be private. at least within boundaries that are established by the different

groups that are involved in it. again, i feel there is no question that there is of the potential for it to be destructive, not just to our country but the entire world. host: talking about one story in "the new york times" looking at the role of u.s. diplomats. this is a continuation of that.

hawaii. quite early there. mark, democrats' line. the think it hurts u.s. diplomacy? caller: i believe what private manning did was born of the reality that he was watching our nation's diplomatic process being subverted by certain intentions and objectives that were contrary to this nation's principles and as a result the expos this information to wikileaks, who had every right to show it to the world because in fact all they are are a whistle-blower website that allows people to expose truth of things that are taking place within the government or business, to illustrate to the public things that need to change. if we don't have that, we have secrecy and we will have much more corruption. what he was doing was the right thing. however, in the united states army, you did take an oath and you make a promise. but in reality when you are put in a position to be turned into

something that is contrary to what your government promised you as a soldier and a make you a warrior of death and destruction when they use pretense such as democracy and rebuilding when in fact really what they are doing is destroying and they are doing it for reasons that are also based on pretense. when you understand that you can't really facilitate that process and be of good conscience. i think it is the most wakening process this nation could possibly be -- i think it is a gift that we are being allowed to face our own guilt because our policy makers and our negotiators and state department and our president and leaders have been basically not only lying to the world but if we don't realize that every intelligence service in the world does in fact know about -- they are not surprised when they hear these things. this is about the american public being exposed to these things. host: we will leave it there. let us look in "the new york post" had lied.

-- headline. that is what "the new york post close what is going well. let us look at "the guardian," one of the newspapers internationally that had access to these cables and see how they are covering its. -- it. of the top stores pulling out of this, king of the oil from saudi arabia repeatedly urged the united states to attack iran to destroy its nuclear program, according to u.s. diplomatic cables leaked. go to savannah, georgia. david, democratic caller. caller: how are you? i do think it will hurt u.s.

diplomacy in the future. just because it, it's kind of puts america's face -- i don't know, not in a good position. i do think in the future, other countries will look at us and say, a little bit high schoolish where people are talking behind each other behind each other's back. it really does not bring anything to the table, because in the and we still just need to talk with each other and come to some sort of conclusion. that is basically it. there is really no point to wikileaks -- because it was what is occurring in the future instead of -- but just that america must shed its mouth sometimes. host: let us go to "the washington post." many of the insights are not surprising by themselves.

it will continue that story as it jumps to another page. information that they may already know but now coming firsthand from government sources. "the washington post" asking how people got the information. in a story that talk about how people can get access to this and how tightly controlled really is a disinformation, if it is considered to be important or classified or secret information. the piece goes on to say that hillary clinton -- and this is actually quoting from army

private bradley manning's conversation online. this is from a chat that "the washington post" got a hold of. before we go to more calls, let us take a look at what is being done to brand future breaches. the pentagon ordered the disabling of a feature on all classified computer systems that

allows materials to be copied on a fund drive. -- someone drive. myrtle beach, south carolina. john, good morning but caller: i have been fascinated by some of the responses. i think wikileaks should be given the metal -- medal of freedom. we should know more about our government after george bush ended cheney took us into war on false intelligence. it would have been nice to know if the american public knew all of this intelligence that was given us was bogus and they were depending on somebody to give us intelligence on iraq. if i could speak about saudi arabia, that would sort of be a win-win situation, for us to go

in and bomb iran, excuse me, and it would almost invariably close of the strait of hormuz where most of the world's oil comes through. what would that do? it would make will go to $200 or $300 a barrel. it would not be a bad thing for saudi arabia to triple their income and also annihilate one of their competitors who has a lot of the world's oil underneath the ground. i am a little cynical about saudi arabia saying we are against them. once again, there is no proof that iran is making a bomb. of course, we will not hear that from our national media but basically there is no proof that iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. host: let us take a look at this from "the new york times." king abdullah of saudi arabia --

vladimir putin and a prime minister of italy have developed an extraordinary alliance according to diplomats. let's go to our next caller. michael from pennsylvania. a democratic caller. good morning. caller: good one. actually, i wanted to to to be commenting on what the gentleman from south carolina mentioned a moment ago which did i think is the mostmbarrassing thing. it shows that the united states is still being manipulated by saudi arabia, still pulling the global strings. the big puppeteer on the stage. it was our reason for going into iran and iraq. they don't care about anybody but saudi arabia and kuwait and

dubai and unfortunately they are using our military. what really amazes me is how many countries on the planet that don't have their own military and are doing so well economically. we are just being manipulated. our military is being used and manipulated. it does go back to the bush years. and dick cheney. but big oil, a big problem. thank you very much, c-span. host: riley, independent line in texas. caller: good morning. i think that wikileaks has really done nothing wrong. i think they provide a service that we all need at one time or another. private manning ought to have his but put in a sling. i worked for intelligence in the military and there were severe consequences for us to do that. host: with your insight, do you think this will hurt u.s. diplomacy, this leak?

caller: i really don't because all nations are aware that we each do it. we are all aware of that. i am surprised that it has taken the military this kind of incident for them to initiate the safeguards that wouldn't allow access to a special compartment information and downloading and copying it. i have a comment about pakistan. i think we need to give pakistan a little looser unleash in taking care of some of our, batting in afghanistan. they know the area. they know the people. they have a huge interest in making sure that the area does not get destabilized. i think they are better outfitted for fighting back part of the war. host: let's take a look at issues surrounding iran. we had a couple of callers

mentioned at the rand. this is from "the new york times."

the new york times agreed not to publish the text of the actual cable. laureate -- maury, republican bill caller: appreciate c-span. i think it hurts us definitely. by leaking the stuff out. i think we need to take a closer look at the man who released it, the soldier. i recently seen a report where he said the reason he believed that was because he had a break up with his boyfriend. and the air went into making days of legal in the military now. and (we don't need more of that stuff in there. because this is what comes from its. host: let us talk in moment with andrew from "the new york times" who joins us to talk about this information that has come out that "the new york times" reported on an initially from

wikileaks. thank you for joining us. what is the most relevant -- regulatory information? guest: i think part of that may depend on which part of the world is of most interest to you. certainly the information about iran and the way various nations who we might have thought are at loggerheads are actually working and cooperating with each other trying to deal with the idea of a nuclear iran. host: we will take a look at what "the new york times" has. fears of a nuclear iran. seldom does ever heard in public. "the new york times" has quotes from a lot of people, the king of bahrain, the crown prince of the united arab emirates. it sounds like they are expressing concerns. guest: they clearly are, and they are trying to come up with

various and narrows to deal with that problem. host: what else has come out that is of interest? you said it had been friends on the part of the world you are interested in. guest: for those of you who are interested in the guantanamo detainees, you can see just how difficult it is to place the detainees and other nations. even nations who said publicly they will help of the united states closed get mel -- gtmo, that it is easier said than done. back over in china, there are difficulties on numerous levels, including threats with seemingly chinese-backed viruses and affecting western computer systems. host: what do you make of and what does "the new york times"

report on the bling of lines between what a diplomat and a spy -- blurring of lines. guest: i do not think it is necessarily new or revelatory. it is just more detailed, a more granular look at what has long been known. host: talk about the "the new york times" decision about what to publish, how to publish it, the relationship between the white house when it came to checking with them, what items might have been a threat to national since charity? guest: as you know, news organizations like "the new york times" have a long history that includes publishing classified materials. the times has done it in the past. i assume it will be doing it in the future. in this particular instance,

these decisions as always are not taken lightly bearded the conversations are long and in- depth and we are trying to balance what we believe is important for the world at large to know, while at the same time, balancing concerns for national security. and the discussions at the white house -- these stories were worked on by a series of colleagues. i did not sit in on those particular meetings. but i know that, again, these decisions were taken very seriously with the white house suggesting what materials should be withheld and the times taking those requests very seriously. host: something else that comes out is just a tone, some stores, anecdotes, experiences the diplomats have a broad, whether it is going to a wild russian

party or just insights about some of the quirky personalities of foreign leaders. doesn't this give insight -- does miss it insights about the tone and tenor of relations of? guest: it certainly gives you a flavor that maybe we don't often see every day, the way people conduct themselves day to day around the world, whether it is a crown prince in one nation or an elected leader and another. you see all kinds of insights. host: anything stand out to you in particular along those lines? guest: again, it almost depends on what part of the world you are interested in. certainly looking at vladimir putin is always interesting. and there islenty of detail about his relationships with various world leaders and also domestically in russia.

host: andrew lehren, thank you for joining us. let us go to a comment from twitter -- coming from one of our followers on twitter. let's go to bethesda, maryland. democratic caller. caller: what i wanted to say is i think we should not miss the megatrend. i have two teenage sons and they think that this is an amazing thing. i think what we are looking at is how the internet has created a world view it that we of the older generation are just not aware of. young kids, young people, just do not respect the government and nations and states anymore. my kids routinely play with kids from germany and russia and all of these other countries every

night on their computers, and i think wikileaks is it essentially the modern-day newspaper, modern-day "the new york times" where nations and governments to not matter any more in the world is out there for everyone. in a sense, the greatest gift of the united states is offering the terms of technology, it is a trend we are not noticing that i think we are looking at what the future of the world is going to be. host: 8 twitter -- let's go on to philadelphia where matt joins us. republican. good morning. caller: -- host: are you with us? does it hurt the u.s. diplomacy? caller: an incentive can but i think the same time julian assange is a hero. a reading some of the, quote headlines been brought out through this. i am very happy with what he did. if he needs asylum he can come

to boys town, pennsylvania, and look me up. host: independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. at first i thought this was damaging but i do not think it is as damaging as people think. you need to understand the perspective, that other countries have of the united states. i think most people understand that the united states will say one thing and do something totally opposite. this is literally pulling back the curtain and allowing some of our allies to confirm what they already saw. this private manning died, he is not an individual -- he signed a non disclosure agreement. whether he liked it not, there were mechanisms that would allow him to go through the chain of command. however, i have to applaud him for his courage because obviously his chain of command or leadership could not do something. they cannot change the state department. a general cannot vote to hillary

clinton and say you need to stop this. kind of strange. host: let us leave it there. i want to get back to this piece in "the new york times" that gives us context. to read through the cables is to become a global voyeur. there is of course an outcry from some who are very concerned about what this means for security, and "the new york times" has the story about officials assailed wikileaks and tried to curb the damage.

let's hear from joe in new york, new york. democrats wanted caller: the issue that i have is that we seem to say that this will hurt u.s. diplomats. it hurts americans. diplomats are not ambassadors of years ago. these people have a big budget from the state department and they don't resolve conflicts. they threaten or they buy.

the camp david accord that carter started. $12 billion of u.s. taxpayers to hopefully resolve that conflict. this just indicates once again that we know this was coming. there were veiled threats and concerns from the state department. nothing was done. they leaked it and if they don't get punished, this will happen again in the future. we have to stop talking publicly about everything we do and putting everything down, except -- the messages from the state department is almost like, this is a learning experience, we will put new systems and place. this is so child is. where do people get their degrees from? host: let us look at how the white house responded. they put out a statement saying we condemn in the strongest terms of the another price disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information. orlando, florida. democratic -- independent caller. caller: good morning.

i have maybe a little different take, although i actually think that some of the callers have been going in the direction. the woman talking about the new generation. i think what we are starting to see is actually going to be the end of the nation state. people are realizing that -- it is like this big puppet show that is going on. we project our identities into these different nations states and they carry out these award gains in a kind of virtual reality. and we don't need to be doing that. look at the way this puppet show between nations states is destroying the biosphere, which is what our individual human lives depend on. all the oil that has to be used to fight of the wars. what let's take a look at

dave has to say about twitter. let's go to virginia. bill on our democrat line. caller: it is like this right here. wikileaks needs to be boycotted an wikileaks to me is nothing but a toxic waste for the security of americans. and also mr. manning should be charged with treason for letting all of this out to begin with. we are a united states of america, a combination of human beings that stand together and that right there decides that he will sell out for something -- i don't know how he has done it, but it does not bring about nothing but problems. host: "the washington times" covered it with this headline.

let's see, what is no information for us. here's some information on the north korea-iran and missile trade. that comes to us from "the washington times." let's hear from david in dallas. democratic caller. good morning. caller: i would say that this will hurt our diplomacy in the future. right now, the so-called secret that were released are things that everybody already knew, but from now on, nobody -- friend, allied, enemy -- no one is going to give us any information or tell us anything for fear that it will be released.

and the question of how a pfc gets ahold of misinformation is something they need to address and figure out a way -- it is just amazing. host: if you want to find out more about what is actually on the wikileaks web site you can go to c-span.org. we have information and links. paul writes an e-mail. another email coming to us -- let's go to another caller in texas. marcus, independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: do you think the wikileaks release hurt u.s. diplomacy?

caller: it does. being a soldier, once been deployed in iraq, i cannot believe another soldier would do something like this. there are two laws that were broken that we really need to look at. a first of all, this was -- these were illegally download it and this guy at wikileaks, he knowingly took classified documents and posted them. that is esplanades and he does need to be charged, both of them. -- that is espionage and he needs to be charged, both of them. host: next, republican line. caller: i would like to go ahead and comment on another very interesting aspect, is that, first of all, i don't think it hurts u.s. diplomacy because we get to see some of this information coming from the horse's mouth. it is not filtered through "the new york times" or other media outlets to color it through their own lines. secondly, i think the u.k. to

"guardian" has excellent coverage of wikileaks. all sorts of flow charts and diagrams and amazing coverage versus the regular media publications. host: along the lines of what the reaction is overseas, how the united states in dealing with the fallout from this. "the new york times" reports that reactions have not yet begun to arrive from governments around the world, however, the u.s. ambassador to france said in a statement to the french newspaper "le monde" that the united states for frown lake -- profoundly regrets but disclosure. senior government official said that while the government will reserve final judgment on the document, it does not affect the disclosures to affect germany's relationship with washington.

elizabeth in new york, new york. good morning. caller: there is a scene of the movie "a few good men" where jack nicholson's character is still to tell the truth and he said you can't handle the truth. a lot of americans can't handle the truth, especially in government under the bush administration and they should be worried and i hope more comes out from wikileaks, especially the truth about what really happened to corporate pactel man who was killed by so-called friendly fire -- corporal pat tillman. a comment from helen. down in florida. kevin, good morning.

caller: good morning. i was calling just to say it is about time somebody let the world know what it's really going on. they are hiding all of this information from us. we live in the dark and next thing we are in a war fighting somebody or we are invading somebody's land or something. i think this is good what wikileaks did. they should put out more information. host: let us take a look at some of the headlines, to was from other stories. some international ones. europe approved irish rescue, new rules on the bailout. jumping onto "the new york times" international section. haitian candidates won the election and validated.

-- once the election invalidated. also in the news, looking at mexico, the environment section of "the washington post." let's go to avondale, virginia. ahmed on the republicans line. it does the wikileaks release heard u.s. diplomacy? caller: i think wikileaks actually does hurt u.s. the plaza a little bit, but not really in a bad way. i think this could actually hold diplomats accountable for their actions. it would allow other nations to

kind of see what the mindset of the state department was. and at the end of the day it could help diplomacy and foster a little bit of peace. on the flip side, you have the national security issue that is kind of concerning. have not seen at any of the wikileaks, but if it leads to casualties of americans that would be one of the unintended consequences. it is one of those bittersweet kind of thing. at the end of the day, accountability and openness will probably prevail. it's called providence, rhode island. jack, independent caller. caller: my first time calling. host: thank you for calling. caller: you're welcome. as far as my take on this wikileaks situation, i think this is just a new form of terrorism. it is the united states and the world does not deal with it accordingly, it is only going to get worse. so, they have to treat it as a

new form of terrorism, ok. thank you. host: along those lines -- gary rights on twitter. -- writes on twitter. thank you for all of your calls so far this morning. let's take a break. we will be back with jake sherman from politico talking to us about the lame-duck session. >> take a look at the new members of congress at the c- span video library. every new member is listed, with

their district map, campaign finances for the midterm elections and any appearances on c-span. all free on your computer any time. it is washington your way. >> i am education program specialist here at c-span classroom. each year we conduct our video documentary composition called decomposition -- competition that asks students from grades 6 through 12 to think critically about issues. this year's theme is washington, d.c., through my legs. we would like to explain how the federal government has acted at issue were event in your life and community. select a topic that interests you. once you have the topic you can begin your research. the goal is to fully develop your topic. provide different points of view and includes c-span footage that supports your team and a five-eight minute document prepared for more information visit studentcam.org or e-mail us at educate@c-span.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. jake sherman from politico joins us. the lame-duck session began after a break for the thanksgiving holiday. what is the biggest item? guest: tax cut certainly. democrats and republicans and both parties -- bodies punted on tax cuts for a while and will now have to start looking at i did to extend them and about how they should and where they can get votes. republicans consistently said they don't think taxes should be raised on anybody. democrats said they said and the tax cuts for the upper bracket, which republicans have not been so happy about. but it looks like congress is going to move toward some sort of temporary extension, which will kind of give both the president and congress a victory but what republicans have to deal with -- it is still a

democratic congress right now, so that will be a tough thing to wrap their arms around and the coming weeks but also things like the dream act which would provide some sort of temporary residency for people who went to high school here and went to college here afterward. there is also stopgap funding for the federal government. so, a lot of things these next couple of days. host: the issue of the bush era tax cuts. look like the house will take up this week. nancy pelosi, the speaker, looking at getting it on the agenda and talked about. but can it gain any traction? or is this more than talking? guest: it is tough. the speaker indicated she is bearing republicans to vote against it. speaker john boehner in waiting -- says he will take this dare. it looks like republicans are signaling that they will try to stop that. although it is not clear whether

they were able to. but republicans say they think there are enough democrats who want to support the extending of the upper bracket tax cuts. it has to go somewhere. congress has punted on this for a while and it needs to go somewhere the next couple of days but the senate will be a big challenge. host: tell us about the senate? guest: it is looking more like in the republican direction, looking like it wants to extend the entire gamut of tax cuts. this is going to be a tough thing in the last couple of weeks, and republicans tried to pressure democrats into doing this before the election and some democrats thought they should do it before the election but clearly they didn't and now they face this tough situation. host: "the new york times" caucus section has a piece talking about the president's religious acquit republic congressional leaders. -- president's relationship with republican congressional leaders.

the meeting tomorrow between the gentlemen, what is expected to come out of that, and is this a moment that is more symbolic or will we get some content from it? guest: we can look at two angles. mr. boehner and mr. mcconnell. mr. boehner -- both of them spent a year bashing the president obama. these three men really don't have much of a relationship. mr. mcconnell and mr. boehner, with the present. mr. mcconnell served in the senate and mr. boehner had limited interactions with him. what could come up is a whole slew of things. anything from taxes, to cutting spending, or earmark reform. host: jake sherman is our guest from politico. you can join our conversation --

congressman rangel faces censure. "the new york times" and others reported that he is seeking a reprimand rather than censure. what will we hear about this? the censure could come as early as this week. guest: he is expected to be censured. the ethics committee indicated that that is the punishment they recommend. republicans are certainly by and large going to go along with this. most democrats zigging it will become a political problem for the house of representatives to deal with. mr. rangel says he will try to lobby some of his comments for a lesser punishment. he argues censure is too much. it does not fit the crime. he is asking for a lesser punishment. it is not clear whether he will get one. it does not look likely he will get anything less than censure at this point. host: how much of the fallout might we see this week?

guest: if people vote against it, they could expect to hear about it in the next election, that is for sure. a difficult situation for all lawmakers to punish one of their own. it's collected to the phone. don, democrats' line. calling from new jersey. caller: my question is, the cost of living increase for seniors was knocked down the last two times. president obama about a month ago stated he was out to get us a $250 rebate. it is supposed to go to the congress and senate. when it to know if he knows anything about this. guest: i will -- i could give a clue about what congress will do. republicans have been in a stand tight spending mode and it is not likely this spending will come up. republicans have signaled they are not totally open to the

czech mr. obama proposed. but anything could happen. this goes to a larger argument republicans want to try to cut spending and a campaign on that and indicated that will be the priority in the coming weeks and months. >> let us hear from libby, a republican from tennessee. good morning. caller: yes. host: you are on with jake sherman from politico. caller: i have a couple of comments, if that is ok. host: go right ahead. caller: i am a republican but i am an american first, ok? and i think charlie rangel should be tried by the house and convicted by the senate, that is the first thing. the second thing is, when you are in war, you don't leak anything to enemies, ok, or anybody else. that is where americans need to wake up and forget about all of this mess about being republicans or democrats. host: she mentions wikileaks.

we have been talking about this, all of the cables that have been released. do you expect to hear that come up as a topic debated on the hill this week? guest: i think people will start calling for hearings, which will have been almost immediately. people already hinted hearings need to take place. this is one of the issues that will catch fire on the hill and the ball will start talking about it, ways congress can tighten the intelligence community and prevent this from happening. when republicans take over they are planning a lot of investigations and hearings. darrell eisa -- issa from california, would not be surprised if the ways in, peter king of new york, these are kinds of the things they will talk about. host: don't ask the-don't tell. senator lynsey graham tried to dampen hopes of don't ask-don't

tell opponents. guest: that seems like it is a pretty apt observation. the house has already taken action and they will tell you this is one of the many things that have taken action on that the senate has not picked up. certainly it does look unlikely. and a lot of things going on, -- tax cuts, dream act, things that need to come up and are a lot more pressing, but not look what this will be taken up any time soon. host: we will see a report from the pentagon talking about don't ask the best don't tell and our hearing scheduled later this week. well there be new dialogue? we got some indications of what the report will show. guest: if the report is favorable for appeal, as the

indicated it will be, it will put things behind the train of the repeal. this is what a lot of people said they were waiting for, this report it certainly could shift the dynamics of the help. but still it does not get around the fact there are things they need to do and eight little amount of time before the recess. host: when do you think about the timing? guest: we reported the senate could stay through christmas leave and house wants to come back into session the first week of january. we could legitimately see just one week off for congress, which would be quite stunning, and a lot of work. it's got a story you co-authored in "politico -- host: a story you'd call offered in "politico. guest: it is kind of a bid by house republicans. it indicates they want to get to work as soon as they get their new members. they will be sworn in the first week in january and it went to begin cutting spending and

legislating as soon as the new congress begins. host: never joins us from north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i had a daughter in law in new york city who has been laid off from her job as a social worker. i am interested in knowing what the status is of extending unemployment benefits but this christmas season it would seem to be a win-win situation to have -- how many people, and million people or 10 million be bought on unemployment right now? if each of them just spent $10 during the christmas season, that is a billion dollars going into the cash flow strain. i am an online retailer so i think about those things. been: certainly it has one of the pressing issues of congress, and republicans have stood on the floor late at night trying to block on unfunded benefits from being extended. the house, democrats and house have said this is not the time

to play political games. it is unlikely that unemployment insurance will just the way. i think the benefits will continue. but it certainly will be a fight, especially in the senate, where they have shown very little willingness to extend this in the past. we have had retiring senators who are completely against extending these benefits. another fight to, in the weeks ahead. host: darlene, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that yesterday on tv, they said of the tax cuts the republicans had in mind would not equal the part that if you would put the tax cuts for the rich -- so you could take all of the tax cuts that they want and it would not equal the amount that it would cut from their real rich millionaires and millionaires. the taxonaires' but

cuts have been in place for many, many years and where are the jobs? if they are working so great, where are the jobs? guest: a familiar refrain in washington, where the jobs. i think the caller is making a point that the democrats would make quite frequently which is, if these tax cuts are working, where is the job creation? and republicans will say that this is not a tax break for the upper brackets -- the indicate this is small business owners and people of that owners and pf that creed. it is an important point that the caller has made. host: jake sherman, a congressional reporter, an organist for the next half-hour. you can e-mail us at journal@c- span.org or send us a twitter at twitter.com/c-spanwj. john, pennsylvania, hello. caller: good morning.

i wanted to comment on the tax cuts for a bit. there has been this back and forth between republicans and democrats. much of it has to do with unemployment and small-business hiring. the policies being set forth by the administration. what i see is an anti-business type of agenda. people are complaining about extending tax cuts into the upper bracket. the point i would like to make, and i would like to hear your comments, when we talk about tax cuts for the wealthy or the so- called wealthy and you allow them to had a little bit of certainty moving forward over the next couple of years, it

allows them to hire people, bring more people in, put them on the tax rolls and freeze government revenue by doing that. that is the argument that is not out there very often, but by reducing unemployment and increasing the number of people that pay into the tax rolls, you can increase the revenue that way. after a decline in revenue, this is not the correct analogy. >> eight point that republicans are making. there is another debate going on appeal republicans and democrats are engaging in, what is wealthy? some would argue that $250,000

is too low of a threshold and would not be considered wealthy by today's standards. a debate that both sides seem to be willing to engage in to some degree. it is not likely that the debate will go on now, but the $250,000 threshold could see a change. >> the food safety bill comes out today. how likely is that to gain traction? guest: it has been brought to the floor and it has been batted around back and forth. some people have criticized the democrats, most of republicans, for bringing food safety to the floor as the first item back. harry reid and dick durbin seem intent on bringing it back and bringing it up for consideration.

host: "the new york times" has an op-ed piece. talking about this bill, they write -- host: that is their opinion, but the point out that there have been concerns among small farmers and producers that these new regulations would be too costly. >> that is the perennial mood of the congress. any new regulation will get a lot of questions. host: greenville, south carolina. good morning. caller: i wanted to make a comment on the bush tax cuts. i would like to reiterate one of

the previous callers. if the tax cuts for the upper brackets are working, where are the benefits? it seems that these discussions and opinions get boys but not set. if the republicans are serious about deficit reduction, one of the facts that came to light for me on 60 minutes, the former labor secretary commented that only 3% of the upper bracket is small business related income. in fact, the extension to the upper bracket is really not the business related engine. guest: that is another argument that we hear frequently. republicans have said there is no reason to raise taxes on anyone. they are not arguing over the benefits that we see right now,

although they will say that it is not good to raise taxes in this economy. democrats have made this an issue of republicans taking hostage for the upper middle- class folks. this is not one thing that is catching on for giving credence on capitol hill. forget about what is happening and what the actual benefits are, often politics comes that. a vote on raising taxes right now is politically perilous as we just saw the election season go by on incumbents. tough to have people voting for higher taxes with republicans banking on that. host: this message from twitter -- host: saying that there is misinformation going on. guest: the idea of raising the income level to $2 million has

been bandied about. $1 million is the new threshold that many people have talked about. host: do you get a sense -- in the sunday talk shows yesterday it was certainly brought up and it has been in the news for so many weeks now, is there a sense of who is winning the public relations war on this front? guest: we love to engage in that kind of debate. republicans have had the upper hand and have tried to take democrats as raising taxes on small business owners, which is not exactly the case. as i said before, raising taxes right now is not an argument that people want to have. but also the argument of extending the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires paints the republicans in that familiar position of being a party of the upper class. host: anthony, takoma park,

maryland. caller: i wanted to say that i was watching warren buffett last night on pbs. he expressed a need for some of the folks, billionaires, to consider taking a tax holiday and allow themselves to be taxed more than they have been. he is amongst a number of people more than willing to sacrifice. i think it is a question of loyalty. when you talk about wikileaks and all of these folks who are so intense and hoarding money when the country is in bad shape. republicans are talking so much about tax cuts, losing the tax cuts hurting small businesses. but according to warren buffett,

a rising tide lifts all yachts, not boats. guest: an interesting point that is getting a lot of chatter. that what the really rich folks have said, warren buffett and bill gates, some of the richest people in the world, it appears to be an argument to raise the threshold. they should pay more taxes and many people are advising them on how to avoid paying higher taxes. maybe that is an argument for raising the threshold and not this current plan of $250,000. these gentlemen are obviously very wealthy and have indicated they are willing to pay more taxes, but is there a difference between people making $200,000 with children? host: recent story from abc

news -- a call from patriotic billionaires' to allow the tax cuts to expire. -- thesident's departure president gets many letters like this, this one was signed by grammy winner moby and the founders of ben and jerry's. guest: they are trying to speak for the richest people in the country and the argument on the other side is that these people are not really representative of the small business, $230,000 per year income. they are a different class. this is an issue that congress will have to wrestle with. something they have hunted down the road and waited for until after the election.

host: james, good morning. caller: i am a republican and to be honest with you, i would not vote for a republican right now. as far as the tax cuts go, i think that the average income is $35,000. i do not have a problem with that building up. i have one other statement to make. the democrats, nancy pelosi, a woman that shakes when she talks. harry reid, a person that you cannot even here when he speaks. the third one is a black man whom you cannot even understand anything that says. you wonder why the democrats have a problem getting things across? republicans just deny everything. i do not like what the parties have turned into over the years.

host: are you talking about congressman cliburn or president obama? caller: the third ranking congressman. host: in the house democrats? caller: i do not know his name, but i know he is battling with harry reid to get the second spot below pelosi. host: you can tell us about that contest. guest: steny hoyer. the caller indicated that democrats have had a tough time on messaging. that their defeats were primarily because of policy. they would privately indicate, many of them, that republicans won the war in messaging and republicans indicated that and it has been getting a lot of

buzz around washington. host: leaders of the house democrats, what do they have to do in the lame-duck session to leave feeling like they have gotten something done? guest: they would argue that they have gotten everything done that they meant to get done. stimulus and infrastructure spending. they feel they wanted to do the dream act, which was very important to them. a bill that would give orphans from haiti an extended stay in the united states. with a little bit of legislative wrangling over that. they say that they feel more uncomfortable and extremely proud of their accomplishments. they say that they have saved the economy and millions of jobs. they are pretty happy with what they have done. they would like to give over the

gavel by taking care of tax cuts. again, they are very proud of their accomplishments. host: will people be watching over the next couple of weeks just to without the they have lost power already? guest: i think so. the sprints into the new year is something that a lot of people pay attention to. these tax cuts have been on the table for a long time, they could have dealt with them earlier and they have literally save them for the last few weeks of their power. if they do not hand ... it will not be something that helps them electorally. host: jake sherman is our guest from colombia and george washington universities. kenneth, syracuse, independent line.

caller: how are you doing today? host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on with jake sherman. go ahead. caller: congress -- the american people -- they are all suffering. why not a 10% cut in their money? guest: they might take that to heart. the leader of the republican transition effort says he wants to cut spending across capitol hill. including salaries, back salaries, committee expenditures. he is looking all over to try to find these cuts to make the house run more efficiently. is an interesting project that republicans and democrats seem to be finding common ground on. how do they make this stodgy institutions that has been the same for a long time more

efficient? they're looking to the set time when congress will be in district offices all over the country. this is something that they are looking at and both parties want to cut from all over the capital. host: this is from " washington times -- "the washington times." host: are we getting a sense from the gop in washington that they intend to pursue these social issues? guest: if you look at this article and what republicans have indicated, they could not be more different. republicans put out a paper on what they wanted to do. they avoided getting into social issues. stating that they reaffirmed

their belief that government should not fund abortions and things of that nature, the kinds of things that republicans seem to agree upon across the board. but there was some fighting on this. mike pence wanted that it could not be divorced from the overall platform. absolutely. republicans in washington said that the want to focus on jobs, spending, and not social issues. host: larry, welcome. caller: good morning. good morning, jake. my question to you is -- when we talk about tax cuts, why would we give tax cuts to businesses doing siness in china? throwing them into the same cup of tea as everyone else? all of our jobs are going to

china. we have blamed immigration for our problems. we blame this, of the blame that -- we blame that. republicans are constantly fighting to get the millionaire's more tax cuts when they are probably most of the people that have the workers in china from america. myself in question, and thank you for listening, why do we have a democratic republican and an independent party? -- democratic, republican, independent party? why not have one party in washington working for the american people? and if you do not do your job, you are out? guest: his last point about not doing your job and getting out, there were a lot of democrats and a few republicans that found this year that they were out when voters indicated they did not like what they were doing.

democrats would say that they have closed some of these tax loopholes, making it tougher for companies exporting jobs to get tax breaks. democrats will said that they have done that. closing that loophole. it is part of the democratic agenda, a plan to keep jobs here and not send them abroad. democrats will said they have worked on it. republicans will say that if you keep tax rates low, they will keep the jobs here. host: starting with "politico," putin richard lugar on the spot -- senator richard lugar served as

a friend to barack obama, inspecting nuclear sites only a few months after he was sworn in. talking about their relationship and the role that he could play with the new strategic arms reduction treaty with russia. where is that negotiation process right now in the senate? guest: it is hot. it is going back and forth. the really interesting story is that of senator lugar standing up and acting as a leader for the white house. for him. many tea party members have said it is there goal to get him out of that seat. this highlights the political peril that republicans find themselves in on both sides. when they try to work with the president or anyone on the other side of the aisle, tea party groups go crazy.

this is a tough situation. this is something that senator lugar has been active in over the last couple of years and for his career. he is doing something that he believes and he could face really political peril over that. host: you are expecting negotiations over the next couple of weeks as we move into the final weeks of this session? >> president obama has called it a priority. he said he wants to get it done, although that does not make a difference for the republicans who do not see this as the way forward. i think that senator kyle has said that there is no way that this could come up in the next couple of weeks. it is a tough situation for the senate. it is hard when one senator can grind to the institution to a halt. if one senator says that he is putting a hold on this, it will

not pass. the senator does not actually matter, buit does not have the votes at this point. host: this message from twitter -- host: biscuits to the idea of messaging. -- this gets to the idea of messaging. are they trying to get more success in the public view? obviously, they are, but has anything changed since the midterm election? guest: with real unemployment going up, it is a tough argument to make. the president has gone around the country to highlight places he has been successful. congressional democrats have also tried this to make sure that they get their message out, telling the american people how they have been successful. president obama went to kokomo

last week to try to highlight his success. it has been tough to get the message out. it has been difficult to get people to understand that the move -- the money they spent on stimulus helped to save the economy. republicans stuck to a simple message, witches -- where are the jobs? why do we still have such high unemployment? as they come into majority, that same message will be turned on them. host: republican line, georgia. caller: i wanted to talk about taxes. i know that most of the problem that we have with our economy could be solved by simply going to a fair tax. anyone who has studied the plan with no that it would completely

revolutionized our country and the rest of the world. it would be so transformative that the rest of the world would follow suit. it costs our country $500 billion each year just in compliance to our current tax system. make it simpler, eliminating income taxes altogether, putting in a national sales tax of 20% or more, it would attract businesses from around the world. even the president's debt commission said that we should lower taxes to stimulate growth in the economy. if you add many of the state business taxes and current federal corporate tax, we have the highest tax rate in the world. it is punitive. ronald reagan proved that we would stimulate growth by

lowering taxes. calvin coolidge had 12% unemployment and he dropped the upper bracket by 24% and we had the roaring '20s costs as a result. -- 20's as a result. guest: simplifying the tax code is something that both parties have wanted to do but neither have been able to do it. sending out postcards -- this is what to make, this is what you pay. a huge overhaul of the tax code is a tough proposition. not only is it legislatively difficult, but it is politically difficult. a complicated issue during a tough economy with a lot on the table, this is something that often slips through. simplifying the tax code, david champion, that is something he is interested in doing.

it could happen in the congress. host: jake sherman is our guest, from "politico." this is from "the guardian." about the wikileaks that we were talking about earlier. host: that brings it back to our discussion from earlier this

gary,g let's get to independent line, new york. hello, gary. welcome, you are on with jake sherman. caller: i have a comment. host: we are all years. caller: [unintelligible] don't do nothing putting it towards people on social security that actually work for the money and stuff like that. guest: interesting. one thing that is tough with the things that are going on right now, republicans and democrats have wrapped their arms around republican spending. welfare is something that has come up and it is a third rail in american politics. medicare and medicaid, things that republicans say they want to rein in host: baltimore, md.,

donald, democrat. caller: i wanted to ask a question about social security. since president carter, each president that has borrowed money, have they been replaced? guest: it depends on who you s. -- on who you ask. something that democrats and republicans have brought up, democrats see themselves as protecting social security and saying that republicans want to privatize it. republicans talk about raising the retirement age as something they want to deal with in the new congress. the debt commission has trended to the right on social security. it is something that will certainly come up in the coming

weeks and months. from jonathan,r republican caller from new york. caller: i want to tell you exactly where the american people are. we will always be divided. we will never be indicted. i do not care if we are united. dick lugar is a dinosaur. he has been trying to do something with russians -- i do not know where this start treaty even came from. it came out of nowhere and the only reason that i can think of is to embarrass the republicans over propagating nuclear weapons. but this entire stimulus thing that the politico seems to be absolutely rabbit over the fact that the american people are so stupid. that the message from the most brilliant communicator in the history of forever cannot get

his message across. guest: i think that the argument that the caller is making is that it is the policy and not the message. i thank him for reading "politico." i think that the democrats will admit their message has not been great. the policy in the past based on the base support that the deal with, they believed it to be the right thing. it is their responsibility and job, as well as their erogative to get that across. a fair argument to make. i do not think that democrats would make that argument, even if they believe that. tough to say that the money that they spent was spent for leave to or should not have been spent at all. the message they want to get across is that it was good and many of them would say that it

is a message that has not gotten across. your opinion is certainly fair and you are entitled to it. host: jake sherman, thank you for joining us this morning as the busy lame-duck session gets ready to ramp up. coming up next, we will talk to pete domenici joseph minarik and. first we pete domenici and pete domenici. first, an update from c-span radio. >> in remarks on "the early show," be catastrophic nature of the wikileaks articles will be the breakdown in trust. as the lame-duck session of congress gets under way, "the wall street journal closed both reports that at least 50% of the

new freshmen plan to sleep in their offices and the key selling point was not the proximity to the chamber, but to the gym, where the boy shower. -- where they will shower. this comes from been chandler, he said he voted against the outgoing house speaker on a secret ballot for minority leaders this month, saying the speaker pelosi and president obama are to blame for democratic defeat at the polls. saying that if it is not there, where else does responsibility lie? those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> tonight, "the communicators ," we will talk to people from three organizations.

watch tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and social media networking sites. find our content any time on our digital media library. we bring our resources on the road to your community. washington, your way, the c-span network. created by cable and provided as a public service. >> every weekend on c-span 3, experienced american history television. 48 hours of people and events, eyewitness accounts of events that shaped our nation. visit museums, historical

sites, and college campuses as professors and leading historians tell the into america's past. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by former senator pete domenici, the task force co-chair of the debt reduction task force from the bipartisan policy center. also, joseph minarik, a member of the task force. thank you for being with us. in the news right now, how to deal with that the deficit and the debt. your organization came out with it this report. what is the most significant thing here the actual content of the report or the fact that this group of individuals was able to develop a plan? >> -- guest: i said that i would do this if dr. alice

whitman would. unbeknownst to me she said she would do a pete domenici of only f did it -- only if pete domenici did it. it turns out we have been asked to cover an issue that is the future of america. if we do not fix the deficit and ultimately change the debt so that it is going down instead of up, america has a very serious chance of suffering to this silent killer that will bring us down. flation could be rampant. anything that you can think of that is horrible could happen to this great democracy. we proved that men and women, active and knowing something about their country, they could join together, republican and democrat, and come up with an

answer to this. they could vote on hard choices, even if they did not like them. which was equally as important as the solution, which was unique and doing the job to get us out of this recession. we want the public to know that there is a solution. equally as important, we wanted them to know that the leadership of america must solve this problem and that they cannot hide from it. guest: -- host: this is a privately funded organization bringing together 19 people in this group. guest: it is hard to add too much to what the senator said, he has hit the nail on the head. not only do you have agreement from a bipartisan group, but it is a bi-partisan group includes people who have held office.

people that have faced the voters and they know the risks of trying to be serious on this problem but are willing to do with, putting together a proposal that makes sense. it adds up and is balanced. because you can get bipartisan agreement to help to show that everyone is contributing, as a result you get something that has a chance of solving the problem. host: alice richmond is the co- chair and from the clinton administration. that is her experience. guest: i served as chairman and ranking member for 16 to 18 years. one of the reasons, the bipartisan policy center, they asked me to do it. not just because it was a senator, but because i had had

experience in budget matters. once i was hooked it appeared to be the most important budget matter i would ever handle. that it would be well worth my retirement, which i should be on now, thrown out the window to solve this problem. host: for the executive summary it says that most importantly the plan demonstrates political uncertainty over comprehensive blueprints for tackling the nation's most serious economic challenges. let's take a moment to talk about how the and of association process works. compromises were made to reach a consensus about how to tackle the deficit. guest: in terms of the savings that had to be achieved, what is significant is what stayed in rather than what went out.

you had to do a lot of things. there were individuals in the group whose first instinct would be -- i want to protect a, b, c. by the time that you went through the process and nothing was decided until everything was decided, we had a goal. the goal was to limit the nations that. that imposes a discipline. you look at things that you have to do but do not want to do. once you start to add the numbers and you see how big the problem is, you start to get an agreement. people decide -- well, other people are sacrificing and i have to put my money on the table. host: looking at the bullet points, this establishes two individual tax rates.

host: why you think that individual tax rates and cuts to the top corporate tax rate are substantially important? guest: in order to get our commission unified and moving in the same direction, of reforming the tax structure, which was on the mind of everyone because it was such a mess, it was there. once we took a hold of it, our experts help us to come up with just what you said. making it simpler, reducing the rates. while we were doing that, we've looked at the tax expenditures. those things that people get special treatment for. we get away with those to have a simple tax code, the highest rate that individuals pay in

this beautiful package that they all want to support, permitting them to enter the domain of raising revenues to solve budget problems. as some people have said, this is the sizzle that came along with the rest of the package, making people say -- wonderful, we want to do that, and while we are doing that we can go and fix the part that has to do with a sales tax for debt reduction. when you put those parts together, you have a wonderful package. when the people see it, it is much better than the others. host: going back to the bullet points -- host: we will give to more

details, but let's get a phone call from patrick in -- patricia in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: i have a question about the items that congress is working to cut back on debt reduction. i know that there are many items that have not been thought about. possibly because they are not going to the accounting office balance sheet. there have to be ideas on there that can be taken from the stupid grants they are giving output. it has been years since congress has done anything about raising the tax amounts it charges and the healing amount of money on which taxes are charged. they keep talking about this as an entitlement program, but people are not paying money into this with their employers. i am 69 years old and i have

worked in this country since my day of birth. never in my life have i seen the country more divided than it is now. it comes to nine blind -- it comes to mind, blacks, whites, hispanics, homosexuals -- we are all divided now. host: we will leave it there. doctor? guest: in the task force we cover the substantive points that she made. the first will get further down on the check list, but we did propose a four year freeze on domestic spending, which will include, necessarily, cutbacks on the more unnecessary parts of the president's budget so that we make priorities. we also proposed increases over time on the maximum amount of

earnings taxable under social security to get back to the goal of the 1982, 1983 social reform. which is that 90% of the wages would be subject to tax. of course, the objective here i am having everyone contribute to getting the federal government's fiscal house in order, bringing down the debt, is to have all of us working together. in that spirit, we can respond to the kind of division that pat was referring to. guest: i want to say that you make a terrific statement when you talk about how divided we are. if we want to ride ourselves into a second-rate status, we can continue to be divided. one party can say that they will continue not to talk to the other party and that they will

not be on board if you talk about taxes, writing down the road that way and falling off a cliff. like a country going bankrupt, our mantra -- our money will be the botched. something drastic is going to happen. so, we adopted three simple things. everything is on the table. nothing is left of. that is the first. no. 2, shared sacrifice. we are not going to let people in america come out with another group coming worse off. the problem is everyone's problem. if you do not have a big country, it is everyone's problem if we refuse to get together to talk about it. host: our guests are a pete domenici senator and -- our guests to our senator pete domenici and joseph minarik.

let's get to the recommendations in the executive summary. guest: first of all, we've looked around and the economy has not really come to life. things are still pretty bad for a lot of people. we asked -- what would be the best way to revive this economy? what if we said to all employers in america, do not pay social security tax for one year, keep 6.2%.

meaning about $580 billion to $600 billion staying with employees. we believe that that would stimulate this economy. we can do this because i and our plan, once we have finished reform and we -- we can do this because in our plan, once we have finished reform we will have made sure to make the social security hole. i hate to use the word that acquires-taste in americans, but if he won the economy to start growing, put everyone at a 6.2% pay raise. give the employer is the opportunity to hold that much money and invest it in workers or equipment, something that will cause traction in the american economy.

>> i listen to economists more than most people would want to arguing back and forth these days saying that we need to stimulate the economy and we do not need deficit reduction. no, you are wrong, we need deficit reduction. this is a false choice. everyone agrees that we need economic stimulus in the short term and deficit reduction in the long term. long-term deficit reduction makes the short term stimulus credible. and vice versa. putting them together as you did is the right medicine for the economy. host: let's hear from greg, democratic caller in atlanta. caller: good morning. doing pretty good. i just wanted to make a comment about the republican view on the debt. it seems like republicans would

extend unemployment insurance only if it is paid for by contributing to the deficit but they will extend the tax cuts for the rich no matter what, as if they do not have to be paid for. it seems to me that if they are willing to give billionaires' and millionaire's money without being paid for, rather than giving people the money they definitely need, it really shows with the republicans are for. 10 years ago, when the bush tax cuts came in, maybe talk about that? guest: i am here today -- not in the senate or the house, here to

the together a bipartisan package that will reduce the deficit and the debt so that we can look to the future for our children and say -- what the republicans are doing in the senate is not our plan. however, it seems to me that they are saying that in the middle of a recession, we should not increase anyone's taxes. rich, middle income, or anyone. we will see how it turns out in the final negotiation. this is a position that is based on a statement that republicans believe is true, that you should not increase taxes, they say, on those that produce most in a recession. host: we were talking earlier about the proposals within the

debt reduction task force. about how to change the tax code for americans. what would our viewers feel as a different when they go to pay taxes? guest: the new tax structure that we propose includes a number of fundamental changes. the first is that the tax expenditure loopholes in the colewood -- in the code would be cut back. we would take the deduction for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, turning them into a 15% refundable tax credit that everyone would get. even people that claim itemized deductions and get nothing back for contributions to charity, or pay mortgage interest, would receive a benefit from that. but it would be limited to 15%

of that amount. then, we would have the bottom rate of 15% and a top rate of 20%. we would have a substantial refundable credits for people with wages and families with children. because of the change in the structure, we would be able to take about half of the current taxpayers and their withholding would be exact. they would not have to file tax returns. it is a great the streamlined tax structure, lower at the top end. this is not an unfair tax cut because with the elimination of those expenditures, people at the highest incomes would be paying some of more than they are now. but if they choose to engage in a productive activity, like hiring workers or expanding their businesses, they would

know that an additional $1 of income would be taxed at 27%, of which is lower than what we have now. we would collect more revenue but incentives to work would be stronger. it would be a much better system that eliminates the inefficiency in the current law. from lamar on the independent line. good morning. caller: i have a question for mr. pete domenici. i watched him in the senate for years. he is on a task force the oil to help reduce the debt. while he was in he did nothing to help to reduce the debt. guest: i thought that you were going to ask me an interesting question about the alabama [unintelligible]

football game. i thought they were going to win. look, in my life in the senate -- i take great pride in the accomplishments that you must have been absent for. we had the only balanced budget when i was chairman and ranking member in the budget committee. that was 99 b, correct? guest: 1998 -- that was 99 b, correct? guest: 1998. -- that was 1990, correct? guest: 1998. guest: i worked very hard and i took rate -- great pride in being called a deficit hawk, someone trying to get the deficit under control. i am sorry that you missed it or did not think i did it, because i did.

host: let's look at another plan that is out there right now. this is from "the wall street journal." host: what is your take on their draft? guest: first of all, we are not in competition in the sense that we hope there's winds and hours loses. but it turns out that the president appointed a commission by executive order. their final vote is in the next few days. they produced a budget with 14 votes going to the president and

the congress, they wanted me to hit the line fullback. we said -- what if they do not? if we decide to work on it, we had better get a plan. someone needs something out there to show americans how big the problem is and what the solutions are. there is is different from ours in a number of ways but it essentially recognizes that the debt is a horrendous yoke around the american economy. they recognize that and attempt to solve it. two or three major differences with a total plan. they could get a very big amount of deficit reduction, but they could not get a plan to do the whole thing.

hoping that they could come up with one that has bipartisan support, like ours, getting democrats and republicans on this commission, seeing dead if we could prove to the world that if they took off their political hat, could they vote for a plan? the answer is yes. that being the case, we will ask other leaders to take off their political hats and that's the other leaders to come up with a plan. host: a side-by-side reduction, can u share the highlights? guest: on the side of taxes, the original draft had three options. we have done more in terms of specific thought about how to deal with health care.

also dealing reasonably with social security. but this is all really part of the process, as the senator said. the tricky thing about making something like this work is that on the one hand, you have to have a discussion amongst the policy wonks in washington and throughout the nation as a whole to talk about the potential ideas, finding ways that people can come together on an agreement in a bipartisan basis. running things up the flagpole. typically when you send up a trial balloon, it gets shot at. you need a process whereby ideas are floated, but people protect the ideas and find their way to an agreement. i think that we are a part of that process. but that the president's commission is also a part of that process. as the senator pointed out, we

are really at arm's length working together on something that the people can agree with. host: republican, denver, colorado. caller: i appreciate the time. this situation relates to the tax breaks from the upper class. is the question, if given to increase the employee number is, why not just take the money and a lot it to government jobs? parks? recreation? community service? guest: if we knew how to solve a recession by simply putting people on the federal payroll, we would have a simple solution. if you just took the unemployed, each job would cost an enormous

amount of money, if you just gave each one age of it would move away from our system of free enterprise. we would allow the government to grow and add workers and in the end we would have a situation that is worse than what we started with. there were a lot of people on the edges that were put to work, and essentially until the basic machinery started going with the private sector employee in people, we did not get out of that recession. even with great programs and huge amounts of money. today would be a burden beyond anything we have seen before. host: our guest star pete domenici and joseph minarik, who has served on the task force as a vice president of research for

the committee of economic development and associate the om recordb as well as a chief economist at the house ethics committee. back to the phones, a.g.a. in south carolina. caller: to get rid of the debt we are to get rid of the farm subsidies. and we have to get rid of all of the countries like india that have all of the businesses here. and third, things like china, if it was not for american pilots, they would be speaking japanese. we do not owe them anything. we have paid it back in the lives of our american soldiers. and the third thing, senator

domenici, i want to know why the insurance companies and the v.a. have been not been helping the soldiers to return from afghanistan and iraq and there has not been anything about that in the news. how many centers in the congress has supported these tax cut? as far as i'm concerned, all of them should be suspended. host: a lot of issues there. let's start with the foreign-aid for farm subsidies. guest: we do address farm subsidies in a very drastic way. we decided that the subsidies were too big and were not needed in this day and age with the world markets what they are. we have taken strong steps in that direction. foreign aid, certainly, those who will implement this budget

will have ample opportunity to reduce foreign aid because we are taking the package in which foreign aid lies and we are squeezing down. those who put out appropriation bills will have to cut something in it in order to reach their goals. the domestic freeze is at the $1 level, write the same for four years. it is less than 1% of the budget. for those that think we could solve it with that, it is less than 1% of the budget. the question is, should we have foreign aid, not is foreign aid going to solve the budget by .aking it out most people think we should have a foreign aid program. and there was one other specific.

do you recall it? host: he also had questions about folks serving in congress been very wealthy. guest: let me say that i went in to the congress out of the cor marine corps and i am almost in the same condition today. i am not rich. but that is not to say you cannot be a great senator and have great wealth. it seems to me he should not talk in generalities and say that i do not like the center because he is rich. this is not that kind of a country. -- i do not like that senator because he is rich. this is not that kind of a country. if you want to put everything on the table and say, let's cut everything a little bit, or a lot, but we recognize that the

debt of the united states that is owed to foreign countries, some of which, whether you like it or not, is owed to try now. some of it as much as one trillion dollars. we have got to stop that and turn it around or we are looking at a silent killer that is truly going to get the country, whether you think so or not. host: we have these images in the task force looking and net payment. it says that it will be 17% of all federal dollars just for interim payments. the government will have to allocate about half of all tax receipts just for interest. and we see here in this graphic, the difference between the net payments as they would continue to go verses the task force

recommendations and plans. how do we get to that point? guest: first, to amplify a little bit on the problem, if you saw in private business that had cost of debt service that were going stratospheric, like that charge, that would be the definition of bankruptcy. the difference between private business and the u.s. kurram is that the u.s. government has the printing press. -- and the u.s. government is that the u.s. government has the printing press. we need to turn that situation around, very obviously. the economy of the united states would not survive under those circumstances. but what you have to do is you have to stop piling on debt because the more debt you have, the more interest to have to pay. the whole point of the package that we put together, in a balanced way of looking all across the budget, is to bring the budget deficit down, and so

too stop a comet -- accumulating debt and keep those payments were they are manageable. if the economy grows faster than our debt does, then we can manage this situation. right now, it is the other way round and that is not sustainable. host: paula, republican, california. caller: a few comments. we have a dairy in california, and as you guys know, it has not been very good. for us, we had to get every single thing. we do cut where we can. sinatra the government itself looks at every single program -- i'm not sure the government itself looks at every single program and cuts waste. i hear about the bush tax cuts and the deficit and everything. why not look at each individual

program and begin to cut from one to the next because that is what we have to do to continue to keep our dairy afloat. host: senator domenici. caller: think you for your comment -- thank you for your comment in your to the manner of telling us what you think we ought to do. -- the articulate manner of telling us what you think we ought to do. we look at defense and we say, while your attic, a freeze defense at a dollar level for five years. it cannot grow. that means that each year of those five years, all of the items will be looked at and things will be gotten rid of that are not good. but at any rate, they will meet that target, or that the to the budget will fail and they will have to have supermajorities -- that particular budget will fail and it will have to have

supermajorities for it. that means they will squeeze, squeeze, and some will come falling out. we hope the ones that come falling out will be as you just described and they will be things that are not necessary. in other words, everything is on the table. shared sacrifice is the order of the day, not because it is an exciting thing to do but because we are trying to tell all of you that we owe so much money that the interest on the debt is gonna cause us to -- going to cause us to default one of these days or the chinese will want the notes and chaos will occur. host: tell us about social security and how it is dealt with under your proposal. guest: we were looking at the entirety of the budget, which included programs like medicare

and medicaid. we wanted, in a coordinated way, to make social security solid for the long term. what we did was to go through both the revenue side of social security and the benefit side. we found important changes that could be made, all most all of them taking effect 13 years -- almost all of them taking effect 13 years from now in 2023. it allows those who are close to retirement to go on as they are. but it makes adjustments in the long run to increase the amount of wages that are subject to tax and make selective reductions in benefits, mostly affecting higher wage and higher wealth beneficiaries. by the time we are done we will have a social security system which is solvent not only over the next 75 years, but at the

end of 75 years it will continue to operate in a pay as you go fashion. it makes it solvent in the long run and gives people the security to rely on social security as the bedrock of their retirement. host: and it says here to slightly reduce the benefits for the top 25% of beneficiaries. guest: correct. what we are doing is not to try to fix it for today or tomorrow. we thought, well, we are putting together a master plan saying, why don't we fix it all. we felt we owed it to everyone to come out with a social security plan for solvency for 75 years and at the end of the time it is still solvent in

order to do that, we had to do as joe said, the top 25%, increase the amount they pay in and over time, the upper bracket of medicare and social security will have a slight reduction. but the seniors shoulgot to be happy. there is no increase. i think if the seniors will ask of their leaders about what joe and i just said, ask if this is true and whether it is what they want, the only thing they can say is they do not want in this package. we felt it ought to be in this package. host: next call from fort worth, texas. good morning. caller: someone told me there is a difference between the deficit and debt. if there is, could you answer

that? also, your answer to the previous question concerning why republicans will not extend unemployment benefits, but do tax cuts for the wealthy, i do not know if there was an answer or not. guest: let me try both of them, and then you tell a republican story. every year, we add up all of the money we take in and the money that goes out and draw a line and say, what is the status? if there is a dead at that point, it is called a deficit. the debt is in you will, and the thing that we -- if the debt is an annual, then the thing we arrive at at the end of the year is the deficit.

our debt is so big that we just heard that soon the interest on it will be half of all of the income tax that our people pay. they worked so hard and they pay their taxes and where do the pact -- the taxes go? if we do not fix it, 50% of the income tax will go to those who built our -- who buy our bonds. in other words, they bail out the market and, yes, believe it or not, the chinese made more money than we did. a good place to invest your money is united states bonds, so they bought them. it was almost $900 billion because they purchased them in the market. the difference between unemployment and what it costs and tax cuts and tax increases, which they think it has an

effect on the overall economy. they do not want to increase taxes because they save will hurt the economy. they do not want to play for unemployment taxes unless you pay for it in the next year, two years, three years from now. because they think that hurts the economy rather than helping it. i think that is as good an exclamation as you can get. -- explanation as you can get. guest: i will try the unemployment benefit issue. i have two pairs of pants here. one divide in looking at unemployment benefits is that, one side believes that because people have unemployment benefits they are choosing not to accept jobs. and therefore, you are just increasing the amount of unemployment there is. on the other hand, there are folks who believe that in this labour market there are not enough jobs to go around.

studies suggest that there are five unemployed people for every job that they can see advertised. as a result, there are a lot of unemployed people who simply cannot find jobs, as much as they want to. and you have that conflict between people with different attitudes on that question. then there is another question, and that is, should be paid for an increase in unemployment compensation? -- should we pay for an increase in unemployment compensation? one argument is that when you give benefits to people in a very weakish economy, they're spending of those benefits, in effect, helps to stimulate the economy. there is another point of view, which is, that because of our debt right now, which is so large, we have to be more careful about any kind of spending of that nature and we should not undertake any spending unless it is paid for.

you have the argument about, in a weak economy, and you want to stimulate the economy verses very large debt. and we cannot afford to accumulate any more. i would suggest that if we were in a time where we did not have the high level of debt that we have now, the call of whether we should allow unemployment benefits to be extended would be pretty easy. it would be that we should go ahead and extend unemployment benefits. host: couple of items recommended by the task force, freeze discretionary spending, freeze defense spending, and it also talks about the paygo requirement. guest: i think i touched on it, but perhaps not in debt enough. depth enough.

we have every year what is called discretionary appropriations. there may be 4000 programs in that, maybe 5000. it is put together every year in a number of bills, hundreds of items in each one. we did not go through and check each one off. we just squeeze it by. and if you squeeze it and you break it, then we have provisions and you have to bring it back down. domestic is going to be frozen for four years and after that, grow at a rate less than inflation. the same will apply to defense. we will squeeze it. that means something will fall out. if they find everything that is in there, they will get less for each thing. that is how woodworks. we have a paygo, and that means

to pay as you go. we have strong leadership. you cannot break it with a supermajority. if you break it, there is an across-theoard cut that happens every year. it is as strong as the paygo that worked for a few years. and, indeed, we tried to add to it by putting some entitlements in the provision. host: but it jill in here, democratic caller in michigan. caller: i have just a few things to say. one is, social security, i heard you were going to make people wait until they were 69 to collect. host: no, that is not in this

recommendation. does that change your question or your thoughts? caller: no, i do have another thing regarding health care reform. i was thinking we should do away with medicaid and everything else and create a universal health care system that would include every citizen in the country. take the benefits of of the countries and just get it done. also, mr. minarik we need jobs in this country and i was hoping that we could encourage green technology. host: do you have a response? guest: yes, we need jobs and one of the most important things we are proposing here is a payroll tax holiday to give people more money to spend in the short term. environmental improvement,

particularly with respect to carbon emissions is a policy. we briefly discussed the issue of dealing with emissions of carbon. i believe that if we use market mechanisms and give people a efficient goodsdeficien and services that cut down on carbon emissions, that would be a great way to wind up with green jobs. we also have an extensive discussion of health care issues, both in terms of the current plans for the working age population and their dependents and also for the federal programs of medicare and medicaid. we would, with the changes we're proposing, move in a direction that would make those calotte similar than they are -- a lot

similar than they are now between public and private. the goal is to have people making choices of the health care plans that they want rather than having a one-size-fits-all program. this is actually, by the time they are done, very close to the system they have in the netherlands -- the netherlands. which is, according to polling, the most popular national health care system iran world. i've -- are around the world. i would urge the caller to take a look at the proposal we put forward in our discussion of health care. i think you will find that it is moving in the direction that has been most effective or round the world. host: last caller, robert from new york. caller: i have two questions. first, the dollar has got to be stabilized.

no. 2 -- host: the dollar has to be stabilized. go ahead. caller: no. 2, these guys are making so much money off of the deflation of the dollar. number three, but give a tax break for every person [unintelligible] host:? the wealthiest and concern over the dollar. -- tax the wealthiest and concern over the dollar. a couple of minutes left. guest: the dollar takes a level in the international financial markets. it depends on how our economy is going and how other economies around the world are going. if we have a strong economy, the

dollar will follow along. the most important thing that we can do, in my judgment, is give a stable and strong dollar and two reduce the anxiety and run the world that the u.s. is not going to be able to make good on its bills. host: senator domenici, final thoughts? caller: i want to thank the last caller. i did not know we had many republicans in brooklyn. and thank you very much for your thoughtfulness about the dollar. it is key to everything that we are talking about. the chinese are beginning to understand that it is not so the ball to talk about doing away with the american dollar. is -- it is not so simple to talk about doing with the american dollar.

if will not work unless the chinese decide they need a strong dollar. we will sit with the broad market's look like. i want to close by saying, i have served my country and was off to retirement. i think i might spend a little more time with my grandchildren, and then i decided to cochaired this task force on the debt of the united states. i have never been asked to do anything more -- more important for our country's future than this. in the congress, i would be saying every day, nothing we are looking at is as important as doing something about the debt. that applies to the president also. very soon he will have to make

decisions. how involved will he be? the country needs one big leader on the debt. with that, americans are going to have to get called to bear arms. get ready to put everything on the table to fix this enormous silent killer of the debt of the u.s. host: pete davinci, the co-chair of the debt reduction task force. -- pete domenici, the co-chair of the debt reduction task force. and we're also joined by joseph minarik their website is a bipartisanpolicy.org. coming up, privatizing industry, but first an update. >> energy secretary stephen chu, in prepared remarks, says the success of china and other

countries represents a new spot in a moment for the u.s. and requires a similar innovation machine. the secretary chu speaks today at the national press club. you can hear his remarks live on c-span radio. today, the capitol christmas tree arrives. this year, it is a 67-foot tall engleman scoopers from wyoming. it will be decorated with ornaments from wyoming. this is the first time a christmas tree for the capital has come from that state. and minnesota it is still waiting to know who will be their next governor. a recount begins today. more than 2 million ballots will be reviewed. the taxpayer funded recount is automatic because mr. dayton's lead is within a half a percentage point. the next government is expected to take office january 3, but there's a chance that departing governor tim pawlenty could be

pressed into longer service if the race is not decided by then. and those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> today, a number of academics from the brookings institution and the american institute are calling for nuclear arms reduction for the u.s. and russia. that begins today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. tonight on "the communicators" we will talk to people from three organizations. watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. every weekend on c-span3 experience american history tv,

starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. a visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as top history professors and leading historians delve into america's past. american history tv kamal weekend, every weekend on c- span3. >> take a look at the new members of congress with the c- span video library. find a complete list of the congress tab. every member is listed with their district map, campaign finances and appearances. "washington journal" continues. host: clifford winston, author of "last exit, privatization and deregulation of the u.s. transportation system" thank you for being with us. and economic studies program and

senior fellow at the brookings institution, what is your argument in "last exit." guest: we have inefficiencies in the ordinary as and even in parts of the inner city system. there are really no forces to improve this efficiency and so much of it is in the public sector that i think it is time to start exploring privatization to improve the system a host: and you talk about how a lot of the transportation system started out in private hands. guest: that is right. roads were private, and certainly, rivers and canals, services were private. involved,e country involve they came from the private sector. host: and you wrote in your book, a "private akmal operators -- make that argument.

guest: there was a general government overlay over the operation. it limited the things that private providers could do. in the case of public transit, what was then private transit, there were regulations limiting what people could do in not allowing transit companies to improve operations or finances. and similarly, in the air force, there were times there were private and they struggled in the depression. the government could half step forward -- the government could have stepped forward and help them, but instead, to go over

the airports as we have them now. host: we talk about privatizing public transportation and concerns listed here are -- guest: the key to maximizing public interest in some form of competition. what we are observing in recent public/private partnerships is really, a business deal were the government is able to raise revenue and the private sector

is able to get an investment on their return. if we have a system in which we have competition, how does that discipline with the operators are doing? and the operators themselves have incentive to introduce technology. it is a way of getting market outcomes. each different mode and infrastructure will have a different way of doing this and some will be easier than others. that is why i am recommending that we have experiments. but the idea is long term, and to generate the kind of competition in the city centers, that would vastly improve what and talking about cub. host: just to continue on the spot about the public roads and the toll situation and privatizing that, is there a

better way to do that? how do you do that in a way that is more effective than is being done in the states? guest: i do not want to use the word demonstration. there are constant concerns about demonstration projects, which are generally earmarked and bound to be wasteful. what i'm looking for our long- term experiments were there are clearly concerns over the performance of the highway system. there will not be enough financial support of the public side to improve the problems -- congestion and decay in the system. and we explore what the private sector can do. there are many areas, one, using pricing that is in line with what is causing people to get highway services so that we do not run down services. one is improving the quality itself and there are ways of

improving innovation. these are the areas of broad improvement that can happen. we have had problems politically in making that actually happened. host: your research group talks about how people are paying high prices and that the public sector is not necessarily benefit in. how can privatization come to pass in a way that has not done this already? guest: get what is called contract outcomes. in other words, the competition comes between the users and suppliers. that is the model we have in the real will -- railway industry to a certain extent. shippers negotiate contracts to get their products on the rails. there is no reason a shipper cannot negotiate with a private

railway supplier. that is one possibility. the other thing is you could have competing highways in certain areas and say, look, we're going to have basic competition. i think one of the other things that you have to realize is, when we have something in the public sector, the potential for competition is suppressed. we do not even know the extent of where competition could rise. a lot of these things were not anticipated when we have real roads regulated, for example. anything i am suggesting now is broglie the lower boundary of competition that could evolve -- is probably the lower boundary of competition that could evolve. host: clifford winston is our guest. let's go to laurie, a republican

caller from indianapolis. caller: i hope this is something that you covered. and has to do with amtrak. amtrak has a tends to lose money -- has a tendency to lose money. for instance, on the dc lines. would be profitable to split those off and if there is no profit, eventually, drop it? guest: the amtrak situation illustrates what is wrong with a lot of the system. that is, to satisfy the support of all people in the congress

and the political system, and regardless of the cost. some parts are going to be far more efficient than other parts. and part of it is because of traffic density. you have the traffic density in the east coast that can support a private real system. elsewhere in the country, it just cannot work. host: to give us some historical context, you write in your book, that in 1970, amtrawas

created as a public corporation . guest: that is right. amtrak was intended to be to help theat' was real road system become profitable. -- the railroad system become profitable. it helped, but not nearly as much as the regulation did. amtrak itself was forced to provide national service and continues, certainly, to get subsidies. with no signs of that really changing. host: here is a comment on twitter.

guest: this is not really what we have in mind for transportation. the idea is to have incentives for private companies to provide quality service and they themselves can be vulnerable if they have security issues. if you think about almost every area -- airports are in the area they get a lot of attention. if a private airport -- a private airport does not want to get a reputation of having lax security. they have a great incentive to do this. and obviously, we have other areas of business that have a reputation of finding good security private companies would be the same. host: let's go to david in michigan, a democrat. caller: my own thoughts would be

to privatize transportation and would end up costing people more money. the when you have big operations, you will have a monopoly. . you will not have many choices. i would say, go back to the tax and 1950'sn the 40's and 1970's. when those socialistic president like eisenhower and ford and j.f.k. were in office. maybe start taxing the higher and a little bit more, but to think that we can hand these things over to private industry and have a free market, they are too big. you will end up with monopolies. the will of executives like insurance companies making

$1,500 per hour. guest: you raised two issues that are often raised in thinking about the kind of institutional change on talking about. bear in mind, we talk about monopoly and the same kinds of concerns were raised about the inner city system. airlines, too, were considered to be monopolies and regulated. and we the regulated them. and lo and behold, we find that these are very competitive, novotny freed real growth and the airlines -- both the freight railroad and the airlines. for the most part, tse industries are fighting for their lives, so to speak. the question is, is this going to transfer over to the inner city system? i think in some cases, clearly,

it would. transit companies will be very competitive. they will be competing with audobon and urban service. concerns about infrastructure -- pottow and urban services. concerns about infrastructure, just imagine this area. we have the list, dwi and possibly the creation -- we have dulles airport, bwi and possibly the creation of some smaller airports. the real question is, will we get competition in this area? following the railroad model, the contract and i'm talking about-- that i'm talking could bring about suitable competition. all of that, instead, turns around and raises questions about the budgetary side. that is coming from the public

sector and is a problem. the highway system now, for the first time since the trust fund was created, is running a deficit. the airports are not, but they have concession and rental space and the like. but these things will not be solved by the public sector raising prices. it does not help matters if people do not want to use the system. i think we also have to look at where we are getting deficits not only on the revenue and, but at the very high cost of services. on the budgetary side, that is one of the major enhancements of privatization. host: clifford winston, author of "last exit." but go to the independent line. -- let's go to the independent line.

caller: i do not believe that privatization is the answer here. if you think about chicago, the cta, if you compare them with the bus system, it is quite different. and i cannot really understand why it is. my suggestion is, if you want to talk about experiments, why not of the system inlaport chicago with buses, set up a bus stop on every other stop, and i bet you money they will make their stocks on time. -- stops on time. guest: the problem with transit is the rigidity of the system and the high cost of operations and the inflexibility of trying to cater to a customer base. you just described a model where

a bus system is going to make stops in particular areas. if we have a private system and there is nothing preventing anyone from doing that, the difficulties now are, what routes are fixed by regulation and if you want to change a thing is very difficult. you have political hearings and so on and so forth. you have a bus system that is difficult for consumers. in the real way case, it is difficult for consumers, but they also run deficits and there is rigidity in their systems. i do not know how the rail systems are going to survive, but it may not be efficient for them to do so. we are running very huge deficits to finance these systems and in many cases there is legitimate question whether the benefits justify keeping them in service. i think a private experiment

will enable us to explore how much greater potential these systems could provide, both in terms of consistency and as responses to consumers. given the current state of the system, what you cannot overlook the matter what the systems are, it will not change the problems that we have now. we want to explore privatization as a possible solution. host: what would you explain to middle-class, lower class americans who are trying to get to work and cannot afford to buy a car and cannot afford all of the cost of owning your own vehicle. guest: the way to think about the problem, and this comes up when we talk about transportation, is that transportation systems are motivated for government efficiency reasons. there are certain things we have

government intervention to provide a social goal. we want to enhance the quality of life for low-income citizens and so on and so forth. the argument is that firms would not find it probably profitable to provide service, but that the social service is desirable if the government were to step in. if we want to lay on top of that social goals -- and i would question doing that, but if we were to do it, the argument is to make the system as efficient as possible. and to the extent that we want to pursue a social goal like helping the moment -- the mobility of poor people, try not to hurt the system in the process of doing that. i was suggest that we have prices that reflect cost and that would probably mean price increases. if you are worried about how that will help mobility of the port, give them vouchers or some

sort of discount -- and the r, give themthe corpoo vouchers or some sort of discount. host: let's hear from jacob in iowa city, iowa, in an online. -- independent line. caller: i would say that i do fundamentally agree with your opinion on privatization equals competitiveness and not only drives cost down, but also the quality of service. i would like to address during my call, the roadway system. i live in iowa city, iowa, a somewhat rural area. and there are many highways connecting you to the smaller towns you would want to go. if i was forced to use interstate 80 from iowa to des moines, it is a bottleneck.

to privatize that section of the road, i would be forced to deal with all of their problems, and how can i say -- you know, i would not have very many options to divert myself. i could see privatization applying to roadway -- railway systems and bus systems, but the roadway system seems too far. guest: understood, but keep in mind that highways now are not used in a way that -- the attempt is to be responsive to user preferences. supportable, what we've seen in california our highways where they break them up -- our highways where they pick them up into -- break them up into lanes were there tend to be congestion's. people can pay a fee to go on a less congested lanes.

if privatization were to move in that kind of direction where they try to provide different levels of service for different fees. in many cases, you would probably want to pay money to go where you want to go faster. i'm not sure what kinds of problems that you envision, the congestion is probably number one. and a private sponsor could say, look, we will get you there faster, but it could cost money. you will have to figure out whether it is worth it. for people that do not want to do that kind of thing, obviously, you will go on a regular lane and that will be more congested. but even there, there will be explanations to try to find more efficient ways to make use of the capacity that you have. for example, currently roadway systems are designed to have the width of lanes for free flow of traffic, but what usually

goes on where we have congestion is that you are not going at free flow traffic. the lanes themselves can actually be a bit narrower and the traffic flow through them a bit smoother because obviously, you would have more lanes. there is technology and available -- there's technology the lanes andervary the lighting on the roadway itself. you could change the capacity, which is an important part of the service. host: albert, and welcome. caller: how you handle a situation with cable in rural areas? and it is privatized, by the way. many people feel in rural areas

that they should have access to cable right now, and that is privatized. host: concerns about rural areas in particular. really, it would be in a company's financial interest to go out in a rural area. guest: a lot of this discussion is isolated without looking at the entire transportation industry. no mention of airlines or real ways. we do have both to rural areas and they provide good service and forms of competition. it is not clear to me what is so different about the kind of situation with the same efforts that we can make both with airports and highways. the nature of competition is more subtle. i cannot stress enough the

importance of when you have services and companies that are effectively in the public sector, a lot of innovation and potential for competition is suppressed. for example, you think of airports in rural areas and you would say, well, that is a monopoly airport and it would charge high prices for airlines that want to use it. think of what bargaining power and airline would have. the airline would say, look, you are going to be a spoke on our operation and use charge high prices. we do not really need you. -- and use charge high prices. but we do not really need you. we have our main line network. that is the kind of competitive marketing response that an airline would have to be sure they are not paying monopoly prices to use rural airlines -- airports. you've got to look at a way to

have an overall bargaining unit to negotiate with the habit to have "competitive prices," because if they charge prices that are too high, no one will use it. or if there are possibilities for competition to exist -- i'm not saying that privatization of the highways is a slam dunk, but i think that people can overlook the problems currently with the system and they are not being addressed. that is why in in favor of exploring a change. host: clifford winston, author of "last exit, privatization and deregulation of the u.s. transportation system" and a senior fellow in the economics of the program at the brookings institution. let's go to charlie. caller: i would like to know what is happening with inner- city bus services like greyhound and railways, which trailway is is no longer in existence. guest: it is actually one of the

interesting stories of deregulation. inner-city buses were deregulated along with the rail and air lines and we did not alesi acy -- we did not really see a significant response to turn things around until the last few years. now we see that the bus -- mega bus and providers on the west and east coast competing to provide comfortable seats and on andet service and so an so forth. it took the regulation. in many ways, it is an example of suppressing potential for evolution of a mode. it just really is the right time

in terms of blending technology with its type of service to come alive. but without regulations, it is not clear at all that we observe the comeback that we are now serving in the inner city bus system. there is an argument that led to the regulation of rail and freight, although, the response came much quicker than the buses. host: joe, welcome. caller: i do not know what universe you have been living in, buddy. deregulation and privatization has been the ruin of america. have you been watching what is happening? host: joe, how do you think it is ruining america? caller: the people always lose. they did that in the state above us, in montana, the regulated

and privatize the montana power co. of there and now it is gone. it is owned by a corporation. all the years it took those people to build a power company, then it got a deregulated, privatized and then it was stolen. people always lose when you deregulate. you have to regulate. guest: but keep in mind that the problems that we have with the transportation system now -- and i hope you would agree that there are problems including congestion, budget deficits, delays and so forth. these are government failures. these are systems in the public sector. you cannot have an immediate response that privatization is bad when the system that i'm talking about -- the system's

but i'm talking about are ones created by the government. people always talk about how they always lose with privatization. again, we moved slowly by first going to be regulation in the inner-city part of the transportation system. i realize there are some people that are not happy about that policy, but overall it has been a substantial success. i am suggesting that we end -- that we explore that success. what is so different about those parts of the system, the successes we have seen in the inner-city, they cannot be exported to the other parts of the area? -- that cannot be exported to the other parts of the area? host: nancy, docratic caller, panait