members of congress and the senate. worlworl is washington journal is next. host: good morning. president obama back in washington this morning returning within the last half hour to the white house. he will be discussing a trade agreement with south korea. the senate back in session for a rare saturday session beginning at 8:15 eastern time. at issue, a series of votes on those bush-era tax cuts. today's votes coming at the same time white house working on a compromise that could also include extending those benefits for long-term unemployed. some of the headlines on this saturday, december 4, the "wall street journal" jobs setback clouding the recovery, the financial times, a blow to

obama as the jobless rate rises and the "l.a. times," the jobs report casting doubt on a recovery. we've heard the number now officially 9.8% of americans out of work. this morning we want to hear from those of you either out of work, looking for a job, or working part time because you can't find a full time position for unemployed or underemployed only. we are dividing our phone lines regionly. we want to hear the stories of those of you looking for a job. you can join the conversation on line or send us an e-mail. again, we want to hear for the first 45 minutes from those of you either unemployed or underemployed. we want to hear your story. front page of the "new york times" set the stage, the

jobless rate rises to 9.8%. >> glenn joining us on the phone from politico.

thanks very much for being with us. >> hi. >> and of course we heard that ditch metaphor during the campaign. but now it is the president's economy. so what are his options? >> they're very circumstance scribed. we're in the middle of this huge fight. and it's funny, both sides used yesterday's terrible number towards their own advantage. i must have received about 30 e-mails from republicans and democrats each arguing that yesterday's jobs result was a compelling reason to adopt their side on this debate. but, look, there are people on his staff, on his economic team who really do believe that there's still some need for a kind of stimulus, and senior administration officials were arguing that there's about $150 billion when you sort of put together a lot of their own initiatives that are on the table including an extension of

unemployment insurance, a tax credit that was sort of the $60 billion in annual tax credits. this whole list of stuff that they think can stimulate the economy. i think a lot of the obama team is still trying to figure out how to stimulate. >> that holiday season when we're watching the charlie brown christmas special. and you use that metaphor on line. explain. >> it really is. every time it seems as if we're going to turn the corner here, and obviously i'm not just talking about the president's narrow political goals but really the economy at large, just seems like every time we're about to put foot to pig skin here lucy yanks away the football and we wind up back where we were. there's this real sense, even the market sort of shrugged it off.

there's this real sense that we're just churning along here and that every moment we seem to be pivoting, we don't pivot. host: a summary of what the president was doing, a 13-hour trip from yearneds air force base departing yesterday evening, spending four hours of the ground in afghanistan back in the white house this morning. a lot of speculation on the timing of the trip yesterday. was there any other political motive in terms of the unemployment rate coming out yesterday or was this simply a scheduling matter? guest: one of the spokespeople made it clear this has been in the planning stages for a month. and i can tell you, this is not the kind of thing that you can turn around in a 24-hour period. and matt and others were making a big deal out of this but i can tell you the mood in the white house on wednesday and thursday was expectant about

these numbers. they thought that these were going to be relatively decent numbers. i think they were taken by surprise. so i think the president might have wanted to been around to take a bit of a bow on this. >> we're talking with glenn thrush of political. you can ahead his story on line at politico.com. but you refer to this as a pivot point. the senate is in session today. the democratic plan keeping it below those to middle class and not for wealthier americans. yet behind the scenes negotiations going on. and of course these jobs numbers that the white house reacting to yesterday and today. >> what's really fascinating is that for the first time, really, the critical talks are proceeding between administration officials and republican leadership. this isn't about picking off one or two republicans any more.

this is about a recognition on the part of the white house that they've really got to talk to republicans. and i can tell you there's a lot of skepticism bordering on hostility emerging from sort of democratic members of the senate caucus who very much fear that they are being sold up the river in the larger cause of bipartisanship. so the real defining factor, i mean, the real defining characteristic that i've seen is this escalating tension between the white house and hill democrats. >> thanks very much for setting the stage for this morning's discussion. >> take care. >> you can read more by logging on to political.com. this morning on this saturday we want to hear from those of you either unemployed or underemployed. we're dividing our phone lines regionly and we ask for others

to listen in so we can have a chance to hear from many of you. fay, from michigan. good morning. caller: yes. i've been -- host: good morning. you're with us. caller: i've been unemployed since december of 2008. now, this argument that the republicans have that the unemployed is lazy, that's just not true because in order for you to get unemployment benefits, you've got to show that you are looking for work and that you are available for work. and this other thing about the jobless rate, when obama came into office the rate was at 7.6. so nobody was arguing with bush 's administration when they saw the unemployment rate ticking up. now, all of a sudden it's a big

issue because it's gone up a couple of percentages since obama's been in there and i don't think it's fair that people jump on the obama administration because they have not turned this around. things don't work like that. things take time. things take planning. and you've got to know what you're doing to do what you need to do to get where you need to go. host: how is your job search going? caller: and another thing, if you haven't been steady at least six months, steady working, nobody's going to hire you. host: thanks for the call. "wall street journal" is calling it labor blues. 39,000 jobs created last month, fewer than expected. next, rachel joining us from massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i have been chronically unemployed most of my adult life and it's compounded now by the label disabled as i am

aging i have physical disabilities. but that doesn't mean that i'm not capable of very intelligent, thoughtful and focused work. however, i live in an area that's been chronically -- when i first moved here more than 20 years ago there was about 11% unemployment in western massachusetts. and it has hovered around that since. it's never really changed. some of us live under the radar. we don't even think about unemployment benefits. we're struggling along on benefits that barely -- i mean, i pay my bills. i buy some groceries and then the last two weeks of the month i am flat broke, no vehicle, no access to food. you can't imagine. and here's one last point. i took a little survey in the "new york times" it said balance the budget. and it showed all the different things that are allocated, where the money alcates.

and it let the reader -- i'm sorry, i'm nervous. host: no need to be nervous. caller: it let the reader allocate the fubbeding where they want want to go. i put us forward without raising taxes, without losing jobs. i simply taxed the rich and stopped the war. host: ok. rachel, thanks for the call. katherine joining us from chicago. good morning. how long have you been out of work? caller: i have been out of work since february of 2009. and i had a great job. i was part of a stellar team and the company decided to cut back one person. and i was the one they cut back. host: have you had other job interviews? caller: i'm 63 and you know, i looked for jobs, went on the

internet, and there are jobs for me. and but they're far away. i had a job offer in california. i live in illinois. i didn't want to pick up and go. so i've been just trying to decide do i jump into a service job? do i work as -- at wal-mart as a greeter? it's a huge change for me. host: are you getting unemployment right now? caller: i am. and i also in october i applied for my social security. so now i'm -- because i'm going to be 64. well, i decided that i can get my social security, i get a nice social security of $2,000. and i get, they still are giving me my unemployment but it's quite reduced. so for now that's what i have. but this whole thing about the jobs, i just think that the

economy is big enough to hire anybody who wants a job. but large corporations are holding back their money and they're not spending it on jobs. host: and also banks, a lot of banks and corporations holding back. absolutely right. caller: my husband and i have a nice savings, so we're ok. but i just feel for all the other people who don't have anything. at least i have a great job all my life and i was able to collect social security of $2,000 a month. i'm ok for the rest of my life. and, yes, i'm looking for a job and i keep looking. but it's that, if i walk into macy's are they going to look at me and say you're 64 years old. how long are you going to work? host: i'm going to stop you there. thank you for the call and sharing with us your story.

we're hearing from those of you out of work. the official job ls rate announced yesterday 9.8%. the debt and deficit commission holding their final meeting. 11 voting in favor of the proposals put forth. they needed 14 to bring it up before congress but a lot of focus this morning on the 13.7 trillion debt that we're facing in this country and the year-to-year spending. this cover story from our twitter page, ann has this comment. steve is joining us from montana. good morning to you. caller: i'm just under

employed. host: ok. caller: i'm an independent contractor. we're not included in any of this basic noise that is going on underneath the current. we need these guys to step up. if they're going to start giving free money away, fully a third of the people are independent contractors, not eligible for any benefits. and by the way, good morning cheapy and wal-mart shoppers. hopefully the president does san f say mall as i. host: thanks for the call. gary from las vegas. neved has about the highest unemployment rate in the count country. what's your story? caller: i'm unemployed in the poker business, and i've been unemployed except for the world series of pokor since october of 2009. and i just was wondering why the republicans can figure how

they can give tax breaks to millionaires but not extend unemployment benefits, which you have to qualify for. i haven't even been getting unemployment benefits. i've been living off of savings. and my family, i've got a 15-year-old daughter and my wife is got ms and lupus. but they've got hiring freezes all over the place out here. you know, we've got, like you said, -- dropped from 15% to 14%. that was a big deal. host: in nevada and michigan, the two highest unemployment rates in the country followed by california. caller: right. you know, i mean, between the money that is wasted in the iraq war, which was a waste of time, and the money they're spending in afghanistan, where

people are dying in a war that we can't win, but they want to cut all unemployment extensions and so people who can qualify for unemployment can get it extended. i just think it's a joke on their part and they're hypocritical. host: thanks for the call. hey, it's the boss. that's the headlines on the "new york times." the president spending just over four hours on the ground. a refueling stop in germany and air force one landing in and rues air force base within the last hour. the president will be speaking later today about the trade agreement with south korea. tomorrow he will be hosting the kennedy center honors at the white house before traveling to the kendni center, broadcast during the christmas holidays.

kim, welcome to the washington journal. caller: good morning. host: are you under employed or unemployed? caller: unemployed. host: host: how long have you been out of work? caller: for two years. host: what did you do before? caller: i have a degree in accounting and there's no accounting jobs. i did a lot of accounting with construction firms and i have a brother in-law that's been unemployed, too, because of construction. it's really bad here in arizona. and people are talking about the unemployment rate. you know, rising just a couple%. but they don't realize that that couple percent isn't like a couple percent when you're figuring out and the natural rate of unemployment shouldn't be, it should be closer to 4. so 9.8 is really big.

and this recession started in november of 2007 and our current government keeps blaming it on the past but it's did nothing but rise, rise, rise, since 2008. and they're not doing nothing. and yeah it takes time to do something. he's been in there two years and our unemployment rate is going up. and like the last caller said, i don't get unemployment anyway but there's for all the people that do, you know, they're stopping that. and -- host: how old are you, if i may ask? caller: 43. host: have you had job interviews? anyone even interested in hiring? caller: no. not in accounting. as a matter of fact, they're offering like $10. and 20 years ago i made $15 an

hour. you know? so even, yes they would offer a job but there's not -- i mean, when you get to the paper and go to the classified for employment, usually the paper has unemployment ads, you know, there's quite a few. but there are no jobs to be had. you know? there's nothing. host: kim, thanks for the call. ken from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. host: how long have you been out of work or are you underemployed? caller: since 2008. host: what did you do before? guest: i was caller: i was a maintenance man at mcdonalds. we talk about what the president's doing, but it's holding everybody hostage. i've been out of work since

2008. i've been trying, i've been looking. but there's nothing but -- i mean, the reason why they won't give us unemployment extension is because they won't give the tax cuts for the rich. how moral is that? host: thanks for the call. host: the unexpected ground well of support was building friday around ab aggressive blupt for cutting long-term spenting, raising taxes and stabilizing the growing national debt as law makers called on the president to brace the proposal and launch a seer yiss effort to rebalance the federal budget.

and the senate in session today. david trucker who writes for roll call newspaper and tracks the senate for that publication is joining us live. thanks for being with us. let me ask you first of all about today's session. walk us through the series of votes that we'll see live on c-span 2 later today. guest: well, you're going to see a couple of votes on a couple of different tax extension packages. democrats would like to see a partial extension of the bush-era tax cuts. the republicans would like to

see a full extension. so each side is going to get their votes and neither package is going to pass. then the senate will go home for the weekend following these votes, or for the remainder of the weekend, and they're still going to be negotiating between the white house and congressional leaders on a tax extension package. that can actually win approval. host: let me ask you about those negotiations. who are some of the key players involved and when you think that they could reach some sort of a compromise that could result in congressional action? guest: i can tell you the players. and essentially the president and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and incoming speaker john boehner. there are appointed negotiators that are in this closed-door session such as the treasury secretary and minority whip john kyle from the republicans

on the senate side. senate finance chairman max baucus on the democratic side. but essentially in my mind really what we're doing here is president obama and republican leaders, and republicans know that they're in a very strong position right now. they came out of an election where they did very well, and their position on the tax extension was that it should be for all income tax brackets. so no matter what people feel about philosophies of that, republicans did very well in an election which that's what they were saying so there is no way that they are going to change their mind now simply because they think it would be bad policy. and they're philosophically opposed to it and there's no political reason to change their mind. so i think it's going to be up to the democrats and the president to give the republicans a full extension of

some sort. and the compromise would be for the democrats to only allow a partial, a temporary extension, maybe something that last as couple of years, and then the issue can be revisited. and that's where this thing is going to have to get. whether it gets there before new year's or after new year's is something i'm not sure i can predict. it wouldn't surprise me if it happened after new year's and you had a republican controlled house send something to the senate and all of a sudden the negotiated positions are different than in this lame duck session. but that's where we're going. and the timing will be interesting. that's how it's going to end up playing out. host: some other issues. the dream act, which senator menendez saying yesterday that he thinks it will come up before a vote next week in the senate. and the start treaty, which the white house is pushing very hard since a series of meetings. and most of the republican, former secretaries of state

except for condoleezza rice supporting the latest start agreement. will these two issues come up before the senate as well before they leave for the holidays? guest: again unclear. the dream act i can definitely see coming up. and i don't personally see the vote for it to pass. the start treaty is facing increasing republican opposition and skepticism, and many republicans now want the start treaty kicked to next year where you're going to have more republican senators take the oath and join the republican conference, and the new margin is going to be 53-47. so it takes 67 votes to ratify the treaty and republicans, many, would like this thing to wait. so i think we'll know for sure on start when senator kyle who is the lead republican negotiator on the treaty i think next week is going to sort of really stake out a policy position finally, and we

will know if the negotiations have moved far enough along this thing can pass in december if he believes there's enough time left given the calendar or if it needs to head into next year. host: finally, i want to underscore one point. the negotiations on the bush era tax cuts. you seem to indicate that at the table are the republican players but no key democratic congressional leaders. is that correct? guest: no i mentioned senate finance chairman baucus, democrat from montana. and there are other members at the table. you also have the treasury secretary geithner and jack lieu, and both of those with the new office of management and budget director, both negotiating on behalf of the administration. and a couple of the other democratic members, escape me

right now, but it's an even field there. in fact, republicans might argue you've got a democratic administration, democratic members, and then there's them. but it's an even negotiating field. and although i think the only way these tax cuts are -- the extension is approved to the full extension is for all income tax brackets, that's the only thing that republicans will accept, they will not accept in any way a partial extension for only certain. host: even if it's temporary for a year or two. correct? guest: if you get something that's for a year or two it will work as long as for all income tax brackets. host: david trucker who is following the senate and will be on capitol hill today, live coverage on c-span 2. you can read his work on line at roll call.com. thanks as always for sharing your expertise with our audience. guest: great to be here. thanks. host: "wall street journal" you

can read more on washington

journal. it's also available on their website. jason has this comment. we're hearing from those of you out of work. kenny from reagan, tennessee. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i was wondering if we took the political rhetoric out of what's going on right now, in a time like this we really do need to take all the politics out of it. you know? who's going to win this race, who is going to win that race? why couldn't we take like a six-month trial period and give the tax cuts to the middle class, and keep the tax rates where they are?

at the top level, the top 2%. and see how that goes? i mean, we're in a -- we almost had another great depression and it seems to me like everybody will be trying to work together to get us out of this instead of gridlock in congress. also, i would like, if anybody is listening, that i would like to know if the president would have the power to mandate something like that for six months or so just to give it a trial run. i mean, we americans are all open to good suggestions like that. host: i'll stop you there. thanks for the call and sharing your thoughts. we're hearing from those out of

work. the "new york times" business section looking at the economy and its impact on businesses in a blow to recovery hopes the jobless rate rising in november local governments facing shrinking budgets cutting 14,000 jobs last month alone. next is mea gentlewoman dayton, ohio. caller: i question about the job employment numbers. i mean, it doesn't show where the jobs -- it's like the 16-24. a 16-year-old doesn't pay taxes, i mean, can't do anything. so i'm wondering why they count them in the job market. and then it's not the president's fault. it's got to vote for the president -- the is a congress for to vote.

it doesn't sound american to me to sit up and know that jobs can be done. so we're not looking at the president. and then a good idea for you is like the journal to let the people call in and tell you how they feel about what should be done. not people like david rucker telling us what's going on in the white house. because we know. we don't need him to tell us. we need to tell them and the people around the country what we think. host: i appreciate that. we invited him to come on to talk about the senate in session today as a way of background to explain to our larger audience exactly what's happening here in washington, which is essentially the purpose of the program. but thanks for the call from ohio. the "wall street journal" with more on this tax agreement and a possible two-year deal in the works. john has this story cowritten by janet hook. a potential compromise over the bush-era tax cuts could extend existing rates for two years.

congress expected to be in session at least through december 17 and that could slide into christmas week during what is a very busy lame duck session. the senate in within the hour live coverage on c-span 2. lynne from california. good morning. caller: good morning. host: and how long have you been out of work and do you consider yourself under employment? caller: well i consider myself underemployed. i have a jurs doctorate degree in law and i am looking -- working currently as a substitute teacher which i'm averaging one to two days a week. i think it's absolutely crazy to have as much education as i

have and as much experience working with the federal government as a systems analyst and can't find any work. and on those factors that are factored in that the jobless rate is 9.8%, those numbers are not really accurate. and the reason being, there are just black people alone are at least 40%, close to 40% out of work. so if they factor all those numbers in it's going to be much higher than the level at 9.8. when i worked with the federal government prior to going to law school itself, i have career status which means any time for the rest of my life i can always get a job back in and i've been applying for over three years and cannot get in. i have a friend that also has worked for the federal government and she has been

looking over two years, can't get in. my sister in new jersey has been looking. we're all college degreed people. host: how long have you been out of law school? caller: i've been out now about five years. host: do you have debt from law school or college as well to pay off? caller: i do. and but i have property so i have worked managing my own properties. but with the economy being like it is, that has taken, hurting too. so i just feel that we are spending money that we just don't have and fighting two wars. which is really having a great impact on our economy. and i believe that our country should not be in this type of situation. and for people to call in and say people are looking, the ones that really want to work could find a job if they were looking. that's not true. there are just no jobs out there. it's really in a bad situation here. host: thanks for the call.

from the new york post, the president at bag ram air base yesterday. ronald has this point. why do you exclude party affiliation for the un-and under employed callers? we wanted to broaden the discussion. we want to hear from those of you out of work. we will divide the phone lines regionly for the rest of the program coming up in about 10 minutes. next is gary from atlanta. good morning to you. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. host: what's your story? caller: unemployed for the last two months. host: what did you do before you lost your job? caller: i was an it software representative assisting clients with their software configurations. walked out the door on september 22, the company said they no longer need mid

services. in any case, i've listened to some of this, some of the callers that have called in placing blame here and there. and i hate to go back and do all this stuff and rehash history but some of your callers need to look at history. this president today wasted how many billions, trillions of dollars, $3 trillion on wasted efforts with the stimulus, what have you, did absolutely nothing. and here we are today with these jobless numbers, which i agree are probably more up around 17, 18%. there are some jobs here. i'm not looking at kentucky fried chicken. but being a manager there. i've been in it for 18 years. but that's where i'm looking. i've also spoken to some consulting companies and so forth. unfortunately, nothing has come

through at this point. host: when you send rain shower resume, have you had -- resume, have you had me any call-backs? caller: not from companies looking to hire full time. host: are you getting unemployment? caller: i just started receiving it after five weeks. my issue here is if this president had focused his efforts on the economy like he said way back in january when he was just brought in and inaugurated of 2009, i don't think we would be where we are. but he focused his efforts on health care, he focused on the stimulus, went absolutely nowhere as we all know. he didn't focus on the economy and for the people. that's my opinion. companies today cannot go out and hire because they don't know what the tax rate is going to be. they don't know the impact of

obama care. and i'm going to call it obama care because we all know it was a takeover. so they don't know what their budget is going to be. how can a company plan for their budgeting if they don't know what the tax rates are going to be? host: thanks for the call, from atlanta. a political story that you may be following. you can read more by checking it out on the new york post website at new york post.com.

done from victoria, texas. those of you out of work or underemployed. good morning, donna. caller: good morning. i'm unemployed because of the hands of another. i became disabled. and my complaint is i was told this year that there's not enough money to give us an increase to meet the cost of living. i don't know what planet they're living on but as far as i know the cost of food, cost of gas and other necessities have rose. it's not that i don't want to work. it's with the disabilities that i do have, i'm not hireable. and, you know, all this war stuff going on. we need to help the american people first. host: phil lip has this story, front page above the fold in

the "washington post." 6 l you can check it out in the "washington post" this morning. good morning. caller: good morning. it's great to be on. it's also great that you guys have this service for america. i am unemployed and i've been unemployed for like two years, and i'm extremely disillusioned because i have the time now to

listen and to watch, and i do that. and i watch and i listen. and, steve, people like you and people who are educated need to come out of the closet and tell the people and get through these media networks through it and tell the people what you believe. because we as less educated, not that we're uneducated but we're less educated about the problems that are going on and we're not hearing it from our media. we are not hearing that the people that educate themselves based upon cable are ruining this, the people that are giving them the information are ruining our country. host: give me an example. what do you want to hear? caller: i need to hear more kind of thing that is we hear on c-span. i need to hear more about the -- host: go ahead. caller: we need to hear more of

the things, the basic things that would tell a democratic society how they should vote. host: well, that's what this network is all about. so you have your choice to watch c-span or cnn or msnbc or fox or any other cable channel. caller: that's true. and sometimes i watch some stuff on milton freedman earlier and how he believes. host: thanks for the call. i want to point out another story that we've been focusing on both from the "washington post," from the a section and its editorial u.s.-south korea reaching a free trade deal.

back to your calls on the issue of the 9.8% unemployment rate. from the twitter page h next is frank joining us from virginia. good morning to you, frank. caller: good morning, steve. i've been laid off since january of this year. host: what did you do before you lost your job? caller: i was in the waste industry in middle management. it's a funny thing.

i left construction 20 years ago so i could stay employed. full time in construction industry, as an operator, i was laid off almost every wind winter. so i wanted to get into a better job, an environmental type position that i never thought would go away. and consequently, with the turndown of the economy, trash is not going to land fills. therefore, they're cutting out middle management. and -- host: what are the job prospects where you live? caller: well, in virginia they're not too bad but in this county there's no jobs at all except for land fill. so i'm going to be forced to move. also, i'd like to get a little bit into this mortgage thing.

i just got a notice today that i'm going to be foreclosed on. i got -- i've been out of work for ten months and i'm four months behind on the payment. but in the notice that they gave me, i know they're having commissions and hearings on the housing problem. they sent me a letter which basically says that they don't have the deed of trust but they're going to foreclose on me anyway. so i'm kind of caught in two different areas. i've been trying to make the payment. i did make the payment for six months but i've run out of retirement money. host: how old are you if i may ask? caller: i'm 62. so it's hard to get hired at that age. host: thank you very much for calling and sharing your story.

and for all of your calls and comments. we'll continue the conversation on the economy in just a moment. and a reminder you can send us your e-mail at journal at c-span.org. danny is going to join us from the "wall street journal". this is c-span's washington journal for this saturday morning, december 4. we're back in a moment.

>> if i had to put my money on a likely outcome, it would be that peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace, is likely ultimately to be imposed once again by aut oksy. we just have to hope that if that does happen, the new ruler, the new dictator will be a lot more benign than was saddam hussein. >> john burns, two-time pulitzer prize winner for the "new york times" on the future of iraq. sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> without the new start treaty being ratified by the senate, we do not have a verification mechanism to ensure that we know what the russians are

doing. and they don't know what we're doing. and when you have uncertainty in the area of nuclear weapons, that's a much more dangerous world to live in. >> find out more about the expired start nuclear arms treat wri with russia, what it might accomplish, where the treaty stands now as well as its history. search watch and share all free. it's washington your way. host: we want to welcome damian poll eta who covers issues for

the "wall street journal." guest: thank you for having me. host: i want to talk about the debt and deficit commission but let's first talk about the economic condition. your reaction. guest: i think a lot of people felt the economy was on a trajectory. the last couple months the unemployment data had been positive and yesterday was a reality checks for folks that we're not out of the woods. it's almost like we're sort of inching back up towards 10%. and with all the economic indicators we have that we go through each month, this is the one that really catch it is nation's attention. the unemployment rate is the one that can drive the polls, it's the one that the politicians pay the most attention to. so it wasn't good news for sure. i guess probably take a while for us to know how bad the news was. host: our guest tomorrow morning on c-span's "newsmakers" program which airs

at 10:00 eastern time, here's an excerpt from the program that includes the latest unemployment numbers and fed action on the economy. >> it was a weaker jobs report that we would have liked. it is just one number. but it is disappointing. you know, hopefully we'll get better jobs numbers going forward. i will say i think the jobs report was a little bit out of context from some of the other numbers we've seen on the economy. which seem to indicate a little bit more strength. and, in particular, i think the holiday season at least so far is shaping up to be reasonably good. so we'll just have to see but it is a disappointing jobs report. host: your reaction to his comment? guest: i think he's right. i think the federal reserve has thrown everything they have at this economy and the administration has adds well. so for the numbers to be going back in this direction is

frustrating. obviously this could kind of be a shot in the arm these talks on capitol hill about the tax cuts and extending unemployment benefits. so in that sense i think it's got washington's attention. but i think if this unemployment rate stays around this level early next year you're going to see the administration and the fed keep trying and pul more things off the shelf to get the economy going. host: the entire interview tomorrow morning at 10:00 eastern time here on c-span following the washington journal. it also airs at 6:00, 3:00 for those of you on the west coast. let's go to your story this morning and the weekend edition of the "wall street journal," backing a deficit plan. 14 was the magic number. the commission did not reach that number. what's the significance? guest: well, so president obama created this commission in fegry. and when you're talking about the unemployment rate earlier, it's interesting. there's two kind of fiscal problems in the country. we have this immediate economic

stall that we have with the unemployment rate so high and they're trying to figure out how to address that. but in the longer they remember there's this incredible debt that's been rung up and it's going to get worse as the baby boomer starts collecting. so president obama created this deficit commission back in february and it has 18 members. and the sort of rule that pay put together that no one thought they could reach this level. if they had 14 people of the 18 vote to support the plan that they came 77 with, it would get a vote with in the house and the senate. they got 11 but they didn't get 14. what's interesting about the 11 they did get is that some of the lawmakers that voted for it represent pretty different spectrum of the political environment. you have senator dick durbin, very liberal law maker from illinois although very powerful, number two democrat in the senate, you had senator tom coburn, make crapeo very

conservative, also very powerful and they both agreed that they didn't like part of the plan but something needed to be done soon to address the debt. so the administration and some congressional republicans said they're going to try to put parts of the plan into the budget for 2011. so republicans see them kind of pick and choose but one thing we learned from this whole procedure is that they're taking this seriously. they're worried about this especially after what's happened in europe with some of the fiscal crisis over there. so this whole thing has been an educational process for the country to learn about how bad the situation is and what some of the kind of tough medicine is that the country might have to take to get things sorted out. host: you also point out that 13 senators, 12 democrats and independent joe lieberman issuing statements following the vote yesterday. guest: i think one thing that people are lawmakers are hearing from their districts that something has to be done about spending. and a lot of the campaign commercials we saw last year that brought the republicans into power was they promised to

come here and cut spending. so that resonates with people. a lot of people think the government has grown too big and spending too much money. so when you have these lawmakers who aren't on the commission unsolicited write this letter and say we support this, we need to get going on this, that sort of sends a signal to other lawmakers that they're commited and will support a plan. these are really complicated. they're trying to tackle things like social security, overhauling the tax code. medicare, medicaid. cutting defense spending. anyone one of these things could take ten years to fix. but what they're trying to say is we don't have ten years. we have maybe one or two and we need to get this done quickly because we saw the speed of the financial crisis the way they swept through urept europe they don't want that to happen here. it's hard to work out the details. but we've seen some kind of leadership in both parties step up and say they want to do it. host: the numbers are on the bottom of your screen.

we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, we also welcome your e-mails. let me get down to the basics of the debt and the deficit. can you just cut spending? is it a spending cut and a tax increase the only way to bring down the debt? guest: that's the $14 trillion question quite frankly and that's about the size of our debt right now. those, some of the democrats that oppose the plan said that we should have done more not to cut spending and probably to bring up more revenue. and some of the republicans that opposed the plan said we shouldn't have done anything with taxes. werned have just focused on spending cuts. the folksd in middle said you have to have both on the table to get this done. the way the plan kind of works out they pushed is the debt

down by $4 trillion over ten years. $3 trillion comes from spending cuts and $1 trillion comes from cutting tax breaks and redoing the tax code. so those folks think that you have to have bodes on the table in order to get it done. but that's something that's going to be the flash point whether we focus on spnding or whether we do this through taxes. obviously with this tax debate we're having right now about the bush tax cuts there's a lot of people that say we cannot afford right now to raise taxes on anybody because of the way the economy is sputtering. and i think that kind of resonates with people. so although they're trying to do this plan and not having anything kick in immediately because the way the economy is set, any time you're touching taxes you're kind of tuxing a third rail. but we've sensed from the republicans who tend to not want any higher taxes say we have to at least talk about changing the tax code. host: first, this idea of a tax holiday. what is this?

guest: it's a little confusing and there's different proposals. but i think the idea is that 2011 people essentially would not pay their social security taxes. to keep the fund solvent that money would be brought over from the federal treasury instead of people paying it, the treasury pump it in and it would be kind of a shot in the arm to both the business community because they wouldn't have to pay those taxes for the employees. and also, i guess people's pay checks would be higher because they wouldn't have to pay those taxes. so the idea of a flood of money would come into the economy. people would have more money, would spend more money, and that could be one-year solution to get the money pumped back into the economy. host: item number two, changing the retirement age for social security which senator durbin said he supports. guest: very interesting. he said i'm going to get a lot of flack but i think if we raise the retirement age. so i think the retirement age

goes up to 67 in like 20 or 30 years with the commission proposed doing was by 2050 having it go up to 68 and by 2075 it goes up to 69. it wouldn't affect anybody on social security now. but they see that as a way to cut costs over the long term to raise that retirement ange. it's been raised over time and they say that the life index goes up, social security has to sort of change with it. . .

of that or get most of that because that is more money that comes into the treasury because people don't get to hold onto that. one of the proposals that gained the most momentum was to bring down the mortgage interest deductions so you would only deduct up to $500,000 mortgage. if you could not get a million dollar loan from the bank and deduct that interest from your income. i talked to the home builders. they are really going to fight that. they want the housing market -- they say the housing market is still struggling. the last thing they want is people not buying houses because

they can't get this tax deduction. the co-chairman of this commission says we have to make some on popular proposals. this is one that would seem like would bring a lot of money back into the treasury. host: our conversation with damian paletta of a of a wall street journal. first, we want to hear from you. mike is joining us from cleveland, on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. and i have a comment i want to say about the unemployed rate. first of all, when i worked for a biomedical company, i got laid off. the thing it is, i have been unemployed for about a year now.

i am looking at what is happening with the country, belabor that made it usa. a lot of labor from china. with the autumn, rate especially during a holiday season, you have a lot of people and families out here who depend on that money. therefore, stores are making more money. retail stores are making more money. the food industry is making more money. because if they don't pass this, there is going to be total chaos out here. it is going to cause a lot of domestic problems. the problems with wives, husbands, and they can't get things for their children. what is going to happen to this

country? guest: , one of the things that it is interesting is this idea of -- i don't want to call it protectionism, but what we doing to focus on our economy? maybe we should be putting up more barriers for other countries. there is a lot of pressure for china to change its currency. it was a pretty big deal fact, worked out that still has to pass congress, but i think we will hear more next year about what the u.s. should be doing differently with other countries to make sure they cannot benefit when our struggle look -- when our country is struggling. chris rights -- this was one of the issues that came up this week. guest: they put something in in

order to win over a couple of democrats. it is some sort of hardship provision. i am not sure how they qualify it, but if you do manual labor, if you are someone who cannot work past 62, you will get an exemption and you will be able to collect social security at an early age. host: announcing earlier this week, she was a no vote on the recommendation. here is why. >> i believe too much is taken out of the middle-class and ordered to reduce the deficit and the debt. it seems to me that the people who have paid the sacrifice for many years our middle and lower income people. that is, with the two tax cuts from the bush administration which mostly went to the upper

income people, the two wars, etc. they have nothing to do with creating the deficit, yeah right now are facing mortgage foreclosures. so, while i absolutely do believe that we need to address our deficit and long-term debt problems, i offered a plan that does not take it out of the hide of middle income people, low income people, or senior citizens. host: damian paletta? guest: she speaks for a lot of democrats. this is the reason why this is going to be an interesting debate next year. she is very vocal and represents a big constituency of different groups. she is going to be a voice we

will hear a lot from next year. host: you included many of these are voices before the vote yesterday. i wanted to read one of the quotes. below that, a former director of the office of management and budget -- guest: he is someone president obama put on the commission. it was interesting to watch his interaction with lawmakers. he is a straight shooter and thought many of these problems -- thought about these problems from a business perspective.

he was trying to explain to people often that we do not have a lot of time. once investors decide they do not have confidence anymore in the u.s. economy, we are going to have a huge problem on our hands. that is one of the reasons why they probably got 11 votes. host: good morning. caller: thank you for having c- span. i am in manufacturing here in california and i just watched it dwindle away. i moved here in 1978 because it had one of the lowest on in, rates in the nation. since then, i have watched manufacturing fizzle to where everything seems to be made overseas except prototypes stuff. some of these companies have

part of the economic stimulus. they got millions of dollars. they were going around trying to get the cheapest of. they were not really helping out us who were trying to help of them by giving them low bida and everything. they were still trying to lowball offer the lowest price. they just laid off 200 people. these guys got $3 million in economic stimulus. that is not the way. we have none for -- we have never been able to spend our way to move forward. the government does not create jobs. they need to lower taxes and make incentives to get manufacturing back into this country because that was the only way we got out of the depression. it was because of all of the war machines we were building for world war ii. if that happens, we will be

having "made in china." guest: i think what we will see next year is this debate over raising the debt ceiling. the treasury department can only issue debt up to a level set by congress. but right now, they are at $13.90 trillion worth of debt. there has to be a vote in the first half of next year to raise it. if the debt ceiling is not raised, the u.s. could potentially default on its debt. that is something the administration says they will not allow to happen. republicans will see some of these proposals from the dead commission put into play. republicans will demand some spending cuts to go along with a controversial vote like this. i think it will be a full-

throated debate. host: as reported in the wall street journal questione-- guest: that is right. each of those things on its own could be a huge fight in congress. anything that has to do with the postal service, obviously. we have learned how big changes to health care policy are. they say all these things have to be done in order to get that debt and deficit under control. host: on our twitter page --

guest: absolutely. he was very interesting to watch. some of the things in the document they put out had his fingerprints on it. he said at the end of the day the proposal did not do enough to tackle the health-care overhaul that democrats put in place in the last year. he said there were parts of it that he was supportive of and did plan to put in his budget proposal for next year. host: this is the president's commission but we have not heard any details from the white house. guest: that is what we were listening for yesterday. obviously, president obama was traveling yesterday, but secretary tim geithner is following this closely. i think we will wait to see the

budget right after the state of the union address. we will get to see which of these items he plans to incorporate. the president has already endorsed this idea of freezing the salaries of federal workers for two years. so, obviously, some of these things are on the white house is a radar screen, but how many of these things will they put into place? host: from a white house chief of staff, the cochairs of the commission, they met yesterday and the final vote was 11 to 7. if you want to watch all the proceedings, they are available on our website, as a part of our .ideo library for th rich is joining us.

good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. to me, it is simple. we have a situation where our tax structure is so far different from what it was back in the 1950's and the 1960's. the income-tax structure is also very much different. it is used to go up all the way to 90%. you have to realize that the very wealthiest people in this country are not paying income tax. they pay capital gains and dividend taxes. they pay 15%. the rest of us are paying higher rates. the country is not going to get out of the recession by cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in the country. and they have not invested in our country. they are going to other countries now.

we are watching our nation become a third world country where it before our eyes. book,n read huffington's "third world america." you can read another one by robert scheer called "the great american stickup." any of those three books will give you an excellent idea about what is going on in our world. hosguest: one interesting thing watching this commission was how difficult it is to deal with tax policy. the tax code in this policy is a patchwork of all these different things and should be replaced by something more simple, but doing that is so hard because everything to change has a big impact on different people are different businesses and that is going to be a tough thing to tackle.

i think we did see republicans and democrats say any effort to tackle the debt is going to have to include a major overhaul to the tax code. host: paul ryan was "interesting and engaging." guest: have a lot of people have opinions about congressman ryan. he is going to be the chairman of the house budget committee and a central figure in this. so the administration is going to have to try to work with and if they want to get some of the budget in place. host: senator dick durbin of voting for the measure. also on thursday, two senators saying they will support the measure. one explained why he supports

the proposal. >> i have a lot of heartburn with things that are in this plan. i have greater heartburn with inaction. the time for inaction has passed. if we don't take some very bold action, we are going to see our nation face fiscal difficulties that are much more painful than anything included in this plan. host: your response? guest: one thing we heard a lot yesterday was an old washington phrase. the ceo of honeywell said it as well. i think it was because of this recognition that we could squabble for years about the details of this thing, but every day we wait things are going to get worse. the debt is going to keep rising and is going to be harder and harder to make these changes. i think there is going to be a fight.

i think there is going to be a fight over the details on how to address social security or medicare or defense spending. they were trying to get that point across that we have to stay committed to the cause. everybody is going to have to give and little bit. you can see the storefront coming. a lot of foreign investors are finally paying attention. maybe the u.s. is taking this seriously and they have to watch what we do on this. that is how the debate is going to play out. this could have some big consequences. host: , one of our viewers want to put you on the spot. did the stimulus work? guest: i don't know. does that count? it is hard to tell. i feel bad that i cannot give a straight answer.

if you are one of the 9.8% unemployed, i am sure you feel like the stimulus did not work for you. there is no doubt that they did throw a lot of money at the economy. maybe for some businesses and people that were able to keep their jobs, it did work. i think it depends on the circumstances. host: so imide of help for construction workers building roads and bridges but not as much for others in other sectors of the economy. guest: that is right. they can't do it again obviously. water they going to have to do to give the economy a shot in the arm? host: social security had nothing to do with the deficit

-- guest: that is something we heard a lot during this process, and we will hear a lot especially if they try to go at social security. i think the commission tried to make social security solvent. what they did was put in place a plan to make social security solvent. they felt like that meant taking more revenues and raising the retirement age. that is something that people watched very closely. they don't like the government messing with social security benefits. host: mike posing one of two questions i want you to address --

guest: those are excellent questions. what the commission did it was a factor into the mass that we are going to be spending less on defense as we draw down in iraq and in afghanistan. i don't know about the near-term impact of those withdrawals, but i do know that they were talking about cutting a pretty sizable amount of money out of the .efense budget prediction secretary gates said the proposals would have a catastrophic impact on national security, so expect the defense department to push back on any potential cuts. host: a quick reaction from a viewer -- michael is joining us from anne

arundel county, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? i had heard your compositions about unemployment. and i have been unemployed for a little over 2.5 years. i moved out to texas to be near family for two of those years and i have consistently watch the job market declined hopping. i moved back up here to a anne arundel county which reported the has had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, yet his darkly it is the highest on a platter rate for the past 30 years. working in a restaurant, under employed, part-time. i would rather take the chance. i am a consultant of a warehouse

manager. host: you are living in a van? caller: yes, sir. i have been living in a van for the past year and a half now. you take what you can in life. i am very disappointed. i can plan this administration or the president for the things going on. i do take exception to the public having smoke blown at them as far as the reality of the numbers when you are not taking into account people that have not bothered to claim unemployment, figuring they could find employment, or the students and youngsters who are having so much competition. it is very disheartening and disappointing that we are not being told straight across the board of the things i am certain that politicians and government are aware of.

host: michael, thank you for your call. guest: he raises a good point. we look at this number of unemployment, but the under employment is pretty staggering. those are folks who went from jobs with really good compensation and now they are looked earning much less money. those are people who have mortgages and are going to have a hard time to find the disposable income to pump back into the economy to get the economy going again. it is affecting all income levels, and it is something that -- in stimulus past, i think a lot of people were against it. that patience has worn off. the administration is scrambling to try to figure out what they can do. the lawmakers we saw, a big political reckoning of the

stimulus in the november elections these numbers here are not good. they come every month, so maybe they will get better, but people are very worried right now. host: according to david stockton -- guest: one of the things we heard president obama say is whether we are headed to this thing called the new normal. maybe the unemployment is going to be high for this country. it may be employers will get used to this situation. we will be stocked in this rut for years. that is something that has a lot of people concerned, that may be the easy way out of this is not an easy way out. maybe it is going to be a new

economic reality for this country to be in a higher unemployment type situation. host: on our twitter page -- sydney is joining us on the republican line from bronx, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a republican but i am really disgusted with what is going on in congress. republicans do not put the interest of the american people first. the republicans idea of a smaller government is taking government jobs and privatizing them and then it tossing 10 times more than the government was doing the job for it. i used to work for the post office. and they have been trying to privatize that forever. they said they want to take the post office, and the congressman

will go by the post office and make profits. everything is about profits. they don't care about the people. guest: this document has many different proposals and it, but one of them is to cut the federal work force by 10%. they say that is necessary to make the federal government more lean, but that is 200,000 jobs. with the on a plumber rate, it is hard to imagine them acting pretty quickly on it. host: did the stimulus work? she says no. did anyone think it would? no. guest: of the stimulus is something -- the stimulus was something the administration first did.

that was january or february in 2009. we bottomed out as far as the stock market in march or april. that is when things were really bad. he did get this stimulus through. the impact of it might take years for us to really know, but it surely was not the impact they thought it would be in the near term. that is what we are talking about the disappointing job numbers. host: this fiscal commission is working with its own recommendation about cutting spending. john mccain and -- this headline -- guest: it is an amazing juggling act that they have to accomplish. they have to convince foreign investors that we are serious

about tackling debt and we are not going to allow this country to become grease or portugal. at the same time they have to come up with policies, tax cuts, infrastructure spending that is going to make it get worse in the near term. there are arguments about whether tax cuts are going to end up getting the economy going which will pump more money into the tax base. it is a difficult juggling act they have to deal with. host: we have a couple more minutes with our guest, damian paletta. also, the latest unemployment numbers, 9.8%. the overall economy and debate here in washington, including today on those tax cuts.

the senate is already in session. jackie is joining us from california. good morning. caller: i have just retired. i had an injury so i could not continue to work. i was forced into retirement a little earlier than i wanted. i have been listening to what has been going on for the past few months, and the amount of money in the tax bracket in which i am which is probably $40,000 a year, $35,000, i am not getting a substantial break that i am aware of. i am under the impression that it is around $500 a year perhaps. the top of the top is getting millions of dollars. i would gladly give my when

thousand dollars if they are going to get $2 million. i have never heard anybody say this so far, watching all of the programs. i would rather pay so they have to pay. take the tax cuts from all of us. guest: it is a really interesting point. i have not seen those income groups, but i note secretary geithner has said if nothing is done and all of the tax rates go back to where they were, it will average out to about $2,000 per family of extra taxes for 2011. that number would have a big impact on the economy because a lot of folks cannot afford to hundred dollars. a $2,000 impact would take a lot of money out of the economy. they have been pushing to keep the tax rates low for 98% of

americans. it is a difficult situation. this debate has been this class warfare type of thing. what do we need to get the economy going and what will the impact be if tax rates go up with higher income people and small businesses? this is the thing we are hearing a lot from readers and others. host: we have a lot of viewers and listeners on our twitter page. guest: like a said before, and the fight over the debt ceiling is going to be very interesting. john boehner is going to have this interesting dynamic where he has to kind of the satisfy all of these new republicans that are coming in who will be hesitant to vote on any new spending. they are going to want a lot of

spending cuts but they are going to have to govern and get things through congress. a lot of republicans are probably excited about the opportunity to show americans how they can govern the house. host: carl is joining us from west virginia on our line for independents. caller: hello. my question is about the tax breaks for businesses to move overseas, mexico, south america, what ever. guest: i don't know the answer to that. it is very controversial. this commission did address it somewhat, but i am not actually -- i am not up to speed on the specifics of the proposal. host: from "the new york times. --

guest: one of the things we saw a play out with this deficit commission was the republican party splintering. we had the three house republicans voting against the proposal. then the three senate republicans voted for it. so there is going to be this really interesting debate within the republican party i think in the next six to 12 months over which direction they should take credit should they be aggressive and try to push a republican agenda? should it try to work with the

democrats? that is definitely going to play out in the near term. host: "a new start in washington, " she starts out by saying -- this is no time to raise taxes. it is that simple. guest: one of the complaints we have heard for the past four years from the business community is the uncertainty out of washington is having an impact on their business decisions going back to the financial crisis. the financial crisis started with this ad hoc response from the government. ever since then, we have heard a lot of complaints from all over

the country saying they cannot hire or invest until they know what washington is going to do. that is something the president obama said, that he wants to work harder on this. host: the last thing i want to bring up, on thursday in the debate is going to need to move beyond -- guest: that is right. one thing we thought -- centered gergen called it an historic document. they got 11 people to vote on some pretty controversial proposals. so what happens now? congress is going to cut the taxes or not. they are going to go into recess. is it going to be a part of the president's budget? is it going to be put on the shelf?

the specifics of this are hard to deal with but i think we heard a lot from both parties that they need to tackle this soon. host: damian paletta, thank you so much for your time. coming up in a few minutes, more reaction to the president's surprise trip to afghanistan. he is back in washington. we will hear from the president later today about a new trade agreement with south korea. we will also look at money in politics spent in the midterm elections and how much members of congress are worse. first, a look at the week's events from the view of the political cartoonists around the country.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to the "washington journal." thank you for being with us. what is the significance of the president's visit to afghanistan? guest: i think it was to reiterate support for the troops but also to underline there is a renewed military commitment to afghanistan. to remain in afghanistan until 2014 and to draw down from 2011 until that date according to the circumstances on the ground. i think this reinforces we are there for the long haul, and the job is not finished. the surge that was announced earlier this year will have some

time to work. host: the timing of the visit was almost a year to the day when the president initiated an almost 30,000 increase in troops. we are seeing a drawdown in iran. what does that mean for the military? guest: i think they are fully committed to afghanistan now. i think that a year ago when obama announced a new strategy for afghanistan, that signaled a shift. now that shift is just about complete, so the first priority of the military is to pay attention to afghanistan to solve the problems there. host: also, at the same time with the leaks releasing their information. guest: there were a lot of sharks -- there were an lot of sharp comments.

i think a few things to put this into perspective -- for one, for those who follow afghanistan, none of this was particularly the new news reports about corruption have been heard for a long time now. questions about president karzai's leadership have been out there for a while. there were cables and there were leaked, reflecting the tones and concerns in these documents. in some sense, it is not new news. it makes the relationship and a little more difficult. this will affect the tone and maybe the candor for a little while, but i think fundamentally it is shown what is being discussed privately. host: this is a headline from

"the washington post -- we are going to hear from the president in just a moment about forging relationships with the afghan people. we heard from president karzai about the mission in afghanistan, saying that u.s. troops are moving in in the dead of night and killing civilians. president karzai has been saying it is unacceptable. as that approach changed? guest: i do not think it has changed. the reaction at the time, yes, civilian casualties were being made a vocal for a while. those are regrettable. at the same time, there needs to be an alternative to those strategies so that there can be security in the countryside. i think what you are going to see is that there needs to be a

gradual standing down of those types of operations as the afghan security forces become more confident to conduct their own security operations to secure the countryside. there can't be a vacuum in the short term because these policies are causing concern. and there needs to be a balanced measuring of how to reduce the worst practices but keep up the pressure so there is not a vacuum that the taliban can fill. host: you have held a number of senior roles at the united nations it. a graduate of colgate university and harvard law school. what is the mission of the u.s. institute of peace? guest: is funded by congress and is a bipartisan think take that works on peace and resolution issues. we are on the ground in places like iraq and afghanistan, but

we are based in washington. we publish papers, fund grants to try to reduce conflicts. host: the commander in chief in afghanistan to speak to troops. he talked about u.s. relations with the afghan people and the role of the military. >> this holiday season, our thoughts and prayers are with those who have lost loved ones. the father, mother, brother, sister, or friend who is not coming home. we know their memories will never be forgotten and their life was added to the life of our nation. because of the service of the men and women of the united states military, because of the progress you are making, we look forward to a new phase next year, the beginning of a transition to afghan responsibility.

as we do, we continue to forge a partnership with the afghan people for the long term. we will never let this country serve as a safe haven for terrorists who attacked the united states of america. that will never happen. host: the president's comments yesterday in afghanistan -- can the u.s. exceeded when so many other nations have failed in afghanistan? guest: i think it is a new circumstance and a new effort. there needs to be several changes in the strategy and an adaptation to the strategy. certainly announcing the surge and extending the time line of military command is a part of that shift. now i think we have more time to execute a military strategy and its civilian strategy. i think that is where the focus needs to be over the next few years. obviously, the search is designed to create space and security for the afghan

government to step in. this has not been effective over the last many years. we need to have more civilian efforts and more programs that run to the afghan government but responsibly so the afghan people can realize a peace dividend from areas that have been recently secured. host: reaction from the president's visit to afghanistan as the white house and the defense department continues to review policy and some deadline's coming up next year. that is our topic british market is joining us from oakland, calif.. good morning. caller: good morning. my name is mark. i live in the oakland, calif., area. i am interested in the prior discussion about the tax rate. host: we are focusing more on afghanistan.

do you have a question about our military operation there? caller: i hope everyone there does well. i think the population supports the effort. host: id is an expensive operation -- it is an expensive operation. guest: i think that is a key issue and one that president obama identified as a change to the strategy and to the surge. since then, he says there are opportunities to cost, obviously securing the u.s. and combating a kinda of the primary goals. the cost of military intervention in particular is enormous. it is tens of billions of dollars every few months. this has significant consequences at home as we are

seeing. i think that will be an important factor to weigh against whether or not the surge is succeeding and realizing the government's goals it is designed to promote. if after the spring review in 2011 when it is supposed to occur, if we don't see the increased military presence is developing political gains or development gains, it might be reconsidered in light of the budget. host: let's pull up the map of afghanistan. i want to ask you about the southern part of the country which continues to be a key trouble spot. guest: that is the taliban traditional stronghold. they tend to come mostly from a more populist ethnicity from the south and east. you also have a long border with pakistan, which has provided a

safe haven for taliban and other insurgent groups. there is a former fighter against the soviets who are fighting in the east of the country. then there is another network between the two. each of these get support and protection from over the border in pakistan. it is much easier to get fighters and supplies there. the population there is more sympathetic to the taliban. i think there for you have a stronger presence and that is where a lot of the concentration of fighting is. having said that, i think it is important to recognize that the fight is not just in the south and east. in the north, in the west, these

are also areas or the taliban has made and roads. i think there is a tendency for them to move fighters and try to attack elsewhere to keep the threat up against the afghan government. that is something that needs to be watched very closely. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio. the numbers to join in on the conversation -- wayne is joining us from new jersey online for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe all this can be resolved by israel accepting ishmael sons and daughters back to their homelands.

that would resolve all issues in the middle east. host: we will get a response guest: certainly the afghanistan situation is complicated by neighbors. i think there is a domino affect the echoes from the dispute in israel, palestine, through the region into pakistan. i don't think there is a direct connection to the problems in afghanistan. there has not typically been that many direct links between those two regions. on the other hand, what afghanistan has always been plagued by are stronger neighbors who play out their own political interests in the territory. as the situation tends to destabilize or the situation in pakistan or in iran, this has a fax in pakistan. it is a part of a larger puzzle.

host: alexander is joining us on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the insurgency being fought there is typically more of a religious setting. all of this fighting and that -- i think obama has a good idea of trying to make peace rather than fighting to the death. we will be fighting the rest of our lives. there is a good solution to this. i understand that most of the people getting tax cuts said they really did not want it. clinton was one of them. he did not think anybody like him that much. i think the tax cut money should go to fight this war because it fights -- a cost trillions. the money that goes to the tax cuts should go to fight the war.

not just the lower class and middle-class paying the costs with their lives. that might be a solution to this. host: thank you, alexander. guest: in terms of religion and the relationship between religion and the conflicts, certainly at the taliban's motives are religious-based credit when they were ruling afghanistan until 2001, they had a harsh brand of islam that they proposed across the country. having said that, the main drivers of the conflict that sustain it within afghanistan are political, economic, as well as religious. you have a lot of fighters fighting for different reasons, but certainly some of them are feeling left out of the political power structure of the afghanistan that was established.

this grievance is driving it as much as religion. as far as the cost of the war, there is the recognition of the trade-offs between supporting robust intervention in afghanistan against priorities at home. hopefully, that will be able to be more balanced toward spending in the u.s. as the situation improves in afghanistan. >> host: we talked to newt gingrich. we still have u.s. troops along the border. emma has this point -- guest: i think that is a sensitive issue because of one of the taliban the's key demands, they want u.s. and other foreign troops out of afghanistan.

they say that is a precondition for talks. it has implications for the negotiations coming up. having said that, i think the overall point is right, that we have bases in countries where there has been war in the past that we have an interest in ongoing. they are not in a combat role now they are to provide protection, security, and support. i think afghanistan will need that from the u.s. and nato and other forces there. it is about ending combat operations as civility increases. keeping a presence there, being able to go after al-qaeda and being able to ensure stability is there so that afghan parties do not fight each other and other countries do not intervene to cause more conflict.

host: how do you feel about afghanistan? guest: it is a tragedy to have conflict in any country, but the afghans have suffered so much from this and yet they are so resilience about wanting a better future for their children, wanting education, and wanting peace across the country. i think it is a political problem perpetuating this conflict. as far as the territory, it is a beautiful but harsh landscape. i have travelled through many different regions of the country. it is good to get outside of kabul because then you understand more about the afghan people and the need to support them. there really is kabul, which is an urban center, but when you get outside of the country, you recognize the country is

overwhelmingly rural, people are farmers typically, and they really want to be able to develop themselves and their family free of conflict. that is where the goal should be. host: we are talking to our guest this morning. jan is joining us from west virginia. caller: i am a retired combat stroessner's. i spent five years in korea. i salute all of the military. however, i believe we should definitely since we supply 50% of the military force around the world, 50%, we really need to beef up the the u.n.-nato. we need to be a more collaborative with these countries.

we need to stand together in the world and not be the first one has the point man. host: thank you and thank you for your service at. guest: i think that is a good point. one trend we have seen is the americanization of the conflict. as they withdraw, the u.s. has redoubled its efforts in troops. the the u.s. obviously has its interest in fighting terrorism and al-qaeda, so it has much more of an urgent need to pursue the military as well as the civilian effort in afghanistan. i think the european and nato- contributing countries see more of a civilian goal and they have been reluctant to see this as it were that their fighters should

be engaged in combat. i think it is an excellent point that we really need more than just the u.s. involved. we need a greater commitment from other nato countries and cooperation from the region to help deescalate the conflict. host: i want to go back because this is one of the headlines from yesterday. the comments of ambassador carl icahn. based on the wikileaks information. among his a cable: president karzai paranoid, week, and unfamiliar with the basics of nation-building. dick guest: of those are strong words. i think those were issued about a year ago. host: they were released yesterday. guest: they certainly do not reflect what i think has been some progress.

not a huge amount of progress but some progress towards developing governments in afghanistan. first you had the operations designed to in a small scale clear space held by insurgents and to move government personnel in. the difficulty of providing personnel has been applied in kandahar. it is too early to tell whether that will work. the operation in the kandahar which is much more populous than the other regions will provide yet another reason to grant the capacity to roll in the civilian capacity by themselves. there is a part of the interim process that the karzai government has been going along with. it needs to develop over the next couple of years. we cannot be evaluating this every three months and say well,

no progress on social problems that have been existing for decades. rather, it needs a more sustained commitment. there are concerns about karzai and's commitment to government. i think have a chance to work. host: in the deduction by general david petraeus. the president in afghanistan yesterday. from eugene, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. i wish just thinking that we do need additional help, i think, in afghanistan. we may look into may beat russia helping us -- it may beat russia and to helping us with terrorism. everyone has problems with the terrorism issues. we have an issue with israel and the palestinians. the palestinians help israel with the fire they're having now.

israel may see that the palestinians are not really wanting to harm israel. maybe it is something they will work out there. i think everyone could work something out if they just try. that is it. host: thank you, caller. guest: like the previous caller, getting additional help and resources to all parts of the country from different partner countries is really essential to helping improve the situation. the mention of russia calls up an interesting incident that happened about one month ago. russian forces participated in a counter-narcotics operation which caused some outcry from president karzai. the russian intervention is still a sensitive issue from their invasion in the 1980's. there is a strong reaction to say that they need advance notice and approval if russians are committing troops to any kind of law enforcement operation. that is a particularly sensitive

subject. the overall point is true that russian support is needed by civilian level. political support is needed. the nato countries that operate outside of the the southeastern, where this has been more intense, can do more in terms of training afghan security, police come and civil servants. host: one dealer says we are breeding generation of-the from the afghan people. villagers will support whoever removed the u.s. troops and pays them money. guest: well, i think the negativity toward the u.s. and foreign troops can be overstated. my experience in afghanistan going around, i have never disguised the fact that i am america. i have always been really welcomed. on one hand, there is a legitimate frustration from the afghans about civilian casualties. again, there's a certain heavy

handedness. nobody wants the military to be occupying civilian space is even if it was the afghan military. there is a shorter term angry and resentment about some of the mistakes that have been made. on the other hand, in the longer-term and in the larger frame, afghans recognize that they need international support, that the u.s. is overall providing them with a lot of benefits both in terms of reconstruction and helping to oust the taliban in 2001. one thing _ is that in public opinion polls, you still find it taliban with extremely low support even in the south and east where they are prevalent. people are threatened to upset the alabama -- to offset the taliban. at the same time, they do not want to be ruled by them. the fundamentally appreciate international help and u.s. help to help them live in a more

secure in burma were their personal freedoms. host: we're speaking with scott worden from the u.s. institute of peace. we are talking about afghanistan. the president was in afghanistan yesterday. "a surprise visit" and we are talking about the taliban and the president addressing that. here is an excerpt of his speech. >> in our time, this 21st century, when it so many other institutions seem to beat shirking their responsibilities, you embrace your responsibilities. you show why the u.s. military remains the most trusted institution in america. that is the legacy that your generation has forged during this decade of trials. in iraq and here in afghanistan. that is the legacy that you are

carrying forward. as general petraeus mentioned, one year ago i ordered additional troops to serve in this country that was the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks. all of those troops are now in place. thanks to your service, we are making important progress. you are protecting your country. you are achieving your objectives. and you will succeed in your mission. [crowd cheers] we said we would break the taliban's momentum. that is when you are doing. you are going on the offense and tired of playing defense. you are pushing them out of their strongholds. today, we can be proud that there are fewer areas under the taliban control and more afghans have a chance to build a more hopeful future. host: scott, in the short term,

have we broken the taliban and in afghanistan? guest:no. it is clear in the town band still has a lot of fight in them. the security situation has deteriorated since 2006. there is still a lot of work to do to break the momentum of the taliban and provide security in the areas there are strong. host: how we do that in the short term and in the long term? guest: in the short term, that is with the surge was designed to do. what you hear from smaller operations and from the overall efforts in kandahar is that you can pretty easily in battle to defeat the taliban and you can cause them to the various were afghan forces working together engage in a coordinated combat operations. i'm going to say that in the long term, i think that what is needed is a political

settlement. there is talk of reconciliation. there has been a broad acknowledgement even by general petraeus that we cannot fight our way out of the conflict. i think that is true. military operations need to go forward to sure we are committed to this fight and taliban gains can be rolled back. there still needs to be a political strategy developed with afghanistan as well as supported by the international community city can come to the longer-term, more stable balance of power between the television interests, northern interests, and between karzai. host: the whole nation cannot be a staging ground for anything. most terrorist attacks can be staged in a motel 6. guest: that is true and it speaks to the broader need for a broader development across the country. certainly, the taliban are strong in areas, one, where they

concentrate tactical forces but in other areas where they have sympathy from people who are not seeing the rule of law, are not seeing security, development, governance. they think the talent and maybe an alternative. terrorists can crop up anywhere to have support. however, because of the low overall approval ratings of the talent and, if you wind up having people understand that the afghan government can provide them with basic safety, justice, and services that they will be less prone to tolerate terrorist presence and will be more prone to pointing out where suicide bombers and other attackers are based. this will help to reduce the threat overall. host: we are speaking with scott worden from the u.s. institute of peace. one impact of that 9/11 is a improve security at airports.

the head of the tea is a speech in defense of the scanners and pat-downs. the debate within the tsa says they see every person aboard the plane as a potential terrorist. guest: we certainly need protection of our airlines. there needs to be a daut, however. -- there needs to be a balance, however. the threat is clear from previous incidents to have had with most recently putting explosives on a plane from yemen down for the rest. -- down before the u.s. we certainly need to find a balance of how to satisfy the traveling public. host: it is page a-13 on the weekend edition of "the wall street journal." one comment from twitter referring to at joe's comment about motel 6.

"not motel 6, they leave the lights on." good morning, john. you are on the scott worden. caller: think you for taking my call. i want to preface this by saying that we need to remember, as america, that we have been dealing with extreme islamist terrorism back to the early 1970's. it is probably something we will have to deal with for generations to come. i cannot understand why fighting this war on terrorism that we need to occupy, for the lack of a better term, such a primitive country in afghanistan. can someone just define what will constitute "a victory" in afghanistan? thank you. guest: that is a key question. what would constitute a victory? the answer varies from simply defeating al qaeda and and

removing their safe havens in afghanistan to developing afghanistan into a modern, democratic state. the goal needs to be somewhere in between that. on the one hand, we have been very successful in denying a safe haven to out qaeda. in that narrow sense, the mission has actually been accomplished very well so far there are reports that none of the senior al qaeda leadership in afghanistan are not there. most of them are in pakistan and are spreading out in other areas in the middle east. there are relatively few foreign fighters helping the taliban in the insurgency. the difficulty is how to sustain that. i think that is where i get into the broader government's objective. if afghanistan and the government cannot secure their own territory and support their people by providing governance,

and basic justice, and services, then you can easily imagine after we withdraw our military forces that the taliban can get the upper hand again and having to replay the whole scenario. we really need it balance of threat to keep the sanctuary's outside of the afghan borders and also a development agenda that will enable that to be sustainable by afghans with strong, but not as strong, international support. caller: front-page on "the chicago tribune." on the republican line, good morning, richard. caller: hello. how are you? the people of afghanistan need to participate more in their country to make it more safe than to build a nation of righteousness.

in more muslim nations, they need to get involved because these terrorists do not care about killing muslims. they kill more muslims than they do americans. these muslim nations mean -- need to help more. guest: i very much agree. there are some positive signs. in terms of developing a civil society, egypt has played an important, but very quiet, role in helping to train afghan judges and participating in civil service reform. also a role that is not publicized is the united arab emirates have sent military divisors to help train forces. these are small programs, but i think you are absolutely right that more countries in the region that share common interests with afghanistan should, and can, contribute so it is not perceived as a western

intervention but rather that it is a global intervention and a regional intervention for the betterment of the afghan people. host: on the democratic line from oklahoma city. good morning. caller: good morning. what has not been talked about, but i feel is true, is you can type the war directly to the timing of the bush tax cuts. it is the middle-class and working poor who send their children to protect this country. host: i will stop it there because we are getting feedback. there is a slight delay. but he did make his point. guest: he did, and i think it is a good one. obama's recent visit helped to underscore the point that it is the american military that is paying the biggest price to support this. it is not just the soldiers but their families that bear the burden of this service.

i think that really underscores the urgency of being efficient in our operations in afghanistan, clarifying our objectives, and making sure we can get home as quickly as possible. yet still finishing the job, i should say. host: in fullerton, calif., on the democratic line. good morning. welcome to the conversation. go ahead. caller: after watching that excerpt of president obama in afghanistan yesterday, i get the impression that president obama /ceo of afghanistan is going to be harder on the comet karzai. she is notoriously corrupt. -- on a karzai. first of all, the woman who called earlier about the lack of nato support. she is correct. when you look at the numbers and how the united states has given

to nato and how little the other nato allies have given in return, on wheat, the united states, are bearing the brunt of making the world great. my point is that i have read it twice secretary gates article in journals, it stays the same. his theme is we need to buy our enemies loyalty. i do not understand -- obviously, it is not working. that is why obama was in afghanistan yesterday talking tough. we do not have enough money. there is not enough money in the world to buy the loyalty of our enemies. this was in the early 1980's when i studied middle eastern politics.

what i was told by a few of my professors then is that when there is an uprising in the area, we call that the arab world back then, there would be a massive uprising. the dilemma will be in fighting this when they attack us. it will not be geographically isolated. it will be a cultural uprising. he called it "pan-islamic uprising." we can play hopscotch around the world tried to put up a resistance in afghanistan, iraq, iran, but it will still come up in other parts of the world. host: i will stop there but i appreciate you making a point. we will give scott a chance to respond. scott morgan? -- worden? guest: this is not an isolated effort. it is useful want to see it in religious terms, although that is the rhetoric that is used by all qaeda -- al qaeda.

but seeing this in the larger picture, i think what you will find about al qaeda's movement and location, advances, is that they wind up being a pretty good indicator of where you have a lack of governance. in many ways, they point out where the states are failing and where there are vacuums in leadership and they go there. give saw that in afghanistan when it was ruled by the taliban, certainly in the tribal areas of pakistan where there is no central government role for decades if not centuries. when the movements to places like somalia and yemen, you recognize that while the motivation may be a nearly religious on their part, the opportunity is presented in areas that do not have stability. i think that it really relates to the overall mission in afghanistan which is to say that it costs a tremendous amount of

lives and money to intervene when to have a terrorist base established. once you're there, you want to make sure the you can develop the country enough said you did not have a resurgence of the terrorism when you leave. host: one final point. what is the troop presence of the nato countries including great britain? guest: great britain has been drawing their forces down. i do not have exact numbers. but it is in the tens of thousands compared to the 100,000 + that the u.s. has. host: scott borgen with the u.s. institute of peace. thank you for sharing your point of view with us. when they come back, money in politics, not only how much was spent in the midterm election but how much members of congress are worth. the senate is in action today

right now. senator sanders has live coverage on c-span2 as they did a series of votes on the bush era tax cuts. the argument is keeping them limited to the middle class. you can watch the debate live on c-span2. we will be back here with the "washington journal" in a moment ag. >> this weekend on "the tv" president jimmy carter looks back on his presidency from his "white house diary." he is interviewed by douglas brinkley. tomorrow, weigh in on george w. bush's memoir, "decision points." politics 4:00 p.m. by a live roundtable discussion with your

questions and comments. by the entire schedule on line -- find the scheduling online at booktv.com an oral history interview with the chilled wine-and banks recalling the strategy during the watergate and the pardon of president nixon. it talks about the 1976 presidential election, why mr. ford decided to run, and the nixon pardon. also from the u.s. naval academy, on the confederacy, the early victories, and the year many feel the south peaked, 1863. telling the american story every weekend only on c-span3. listen to a landmark supreme court cases saturdays on c-span radio. >> these are racial statutes to perpetuate the madness of slavery.

that is not a permissible state action. >> this week, led in the virginia commonwealth bank of the court ended all race-based restriction on marriage. listen to the argument today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span radio. 90.1 fm in washington d.c. and online at cspanradio.org. host: we want to welcome dave levinthal, the editor of the opensecrets block. good morning. thank you for being with us. we want to talk about money and politics. the headline this morning in "the washington post," 72 spending almost $84 million. a lot of the numbers come from your organization. can you explain? guest: it is a new breed of political entity that is from the aftermath of a few key court decisions which allows these organizations to raise unlimited sums of money and then spend

unlimited terms of money on political advertisements. these are electioneering communications. they ended up spending together about potentially $400 million in the outside money that was funneled into various congressional races all across the country. host: 1 issue the president brought forth was cut -- was disclosure of the funds. guest: there are some organizations were disclosure is part and parcel of their operations yet there are other organizations specifically nonprofits that, theoretically, are not supposed to have a primary purpose in playing politics yet they are engaged in politics to a very, very high level and do not have to disclose their donors. at the end of the day, we really do not know who necessarily is behind political efforts of various groups both of the left and right.

host: looking ahead to 2012, kathleen kennedy is now heading up what she hopes will be an equivalent of what the american crossroads has done in this midterm election for the republicans. what will they see in 2012? guest: conservative organizations were on the uptick. they are using new tools given to them by the federal government by the supreme court, of course. they did a fantastic job in being able to affect congressional races across the country. the democrats were having a little bit of remorse that they had some part -- in some parts have not played the game as well. if nothing changes for 2012, if the game is the same in 2010 midterm elections, you could potentially have democratic organizations and left-leaning organizations pouring in late tens of millions of dollars in

the political process layer on top of the congressional elections. host: you spend time going to the numbers and looking at how much members of congress are worth. why does it matter? why should we care how much a member of congress is worth? 1% of all americans are millionaires. in congress, it hovers between 40%-50%, meaning elected leaders generally need not worry about the economic pressures that many americans face." guest: you have a congress that elect the people -- that were elected by the people to represent them, but they are necessarily representative of the welfare of americans. they are not necessarily representative of the painful realities many americans are facing weather is joblessness, trying to make ends meet. we have a situation where many members of congress, in fact almost half of them, who have an

estimated average wealth hovering right around $1 million. a lot of americans would love to have town thousand dollars to their name or $1,000 to their name. there is a disconnected in people's minds as to the wealth of congress and the prosperity of the average american. host: leading the list in the house of representatives, the top two are republican darrell issa and representative jane harman. further down on the list is representative jared polis who is worth over $160 million. rep the canon is worth about $148 billion. and rep mccaul of texas is worth $137 million. guest: that is some big, big money. they cannot realize some members

of congress are that worthy -- are that wealthy. people are just interested in, "well, how wealthy are these people? what does this mean to the"? then you have the other end of it which is the group practical land. what are they invested in? constitutes their personal wealth? there are many situations where members of congress are invested in the very companies that are coming before congress to ask for favorable legislation or to beat back other types of legislation that have lobbied the government to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. goldman sachs should be a good one and certainly bp would be another. dozens of lawmakers a personal investments in or at least did it to 2009 who are coming before congress and are truly in the

cross hairs of congress and the public consciousness. these are companies that have gone wrong in the opinions of many americans yet as we sit next to the capital here, they're coming to washington, d.c., and lobbying and try gas the government to get out of a sticky situation. you can talk about all the different banks, bank of america, citigroup, they were very much in the mix when tarp was in play in 2008-2009. there is an interconnection, a very nebulous world where you have people who are making laws, companies try to get favorable legislation, yet you have those very lawmakers responsible for crafting that legislation investing in the very companies coming before them. host: among the wealthiest

members of the senate from 2009, senator john kerry of massachusetts who is married into the heinz fortune. senator mark warner is worth $174 million. senator kohl from kohl's department store. senator rockefeller is worth just under $100 million. then senator feinstein, an estimated worth the $77 million. guest: this fix to the diversity of investments in which the members of congress are involved in. he had everything from basketball teams, retail stores, real estate holdings, on stocks , and a run-of-the-mill pedestrian bonds and mutual funds. it definitely does range from a-z in investments.

we see a lot of blue chip companies, companies that do have the names of everyone would recognize whether it be coca- cola, pepsi, apple, microsoft, all the way down the list that in appearing on the most popular investment list that we have created for a lawmaker investments. guest: in the media, they took in $30 million in debt purchasing. let's look at some of the poorest members of the house starting with a representative solis from louisiana. -- rep. scalise. guest: there are exceptions to the rule. there are members of congress that are being recorded as millionaires and there are a few that are not doing well. host: these are all in the negative.

they have no net worth? guest: that appears to be the case. let me explain the procedure. when lawmakers file these annual personal financial disclosure reports, they are not giving specific values for the investments that they make. by law, all they have to do is give a range. for example, it could be $1,001- $5,000. there is a lot of wiggle room. . have an investment that is worth just more than $1 million, but potentially all we can tell that it could be worth anywhere between $1,000,000.5000000 dollars. the bottom line with that -- between $1-$5 million. conversely if you have members with a lot of liability, they also have to record that in these reports. there is a very broad range to

how much they may be in debt. as it applies to those people who are definitely in the red, you can tell from their disclosure reports, even when you calculate the minimum and maximum net worth of a particular member of congress, the ones you have just mentioned, both the minimum and maximum range, they added to be in the negative range. host: among the poorest of the u.s. senate, senator johnson followed by senator chuck schumer. both worth an estimated $700,000. senator lugar worth $670,000 followed by senator wicker and senator kyl. guest: you have said -- a congressman in the house and senate that will fall outside the norm for members of congress. there is an exception to every rule. what may be the case for most members and be the case for, certainly, the wealthiest

members coming you have some people who come from more modest means who have not had the business success that some members of congress have had. host: you can check out his blog @ opensecrets.org. they check money and politics. he also works for "the dallas morning news" and "the eagle tribune." from akron, ohio, good morning. caller: i would like to think c- span for bringing us news. i but to talk about citizens united. these die-hard republicans know nothing about citizens united, and nothing about reconciliation. from i understand it, we had a contract where we had george bush not veto anything for six years. the first thing he vetoed was a health care for children. now we have republican house, a republican senate, republican committees, a republican president and now have a republican supreme court. as they were leaving, they do

citizens united which is unlimited campaign contributions for companies. you, as a citizen, economic and $2,400 but they can give $24 million and not show. i have watched these letters of disclosure on c-span and i can- someone as long as i say not to vote for them. i can hide behind any kind of name i take. something is wrong here. they elected that supreme court for christian ethics and morals and what do they do? they do the citizens united case. people need to look at what is important. the rich protect the rich and are putting in the laws that the american people have no idea what citizens united is. they have no idea what reconciliation is. they are ignorant. i cannot believe it. i have friends that cannot stand obama. they blame everything on obama.

the democrats for the richest nation in two years. i just sit there in awe. thank you for c-span. i will listen to your comments. guest: it is important to note what citizens united actually did. first, what it did not do. corporations, trade unions, trade associations still cannot write a check and simply give it to a politician and say, "here is $1 million and go do what ever you will do." what they can do is take that $1 million, $10 million, and the dollar amount that they want and spend the money to independently advocate for or against a politician. that is a major change from what we had prior to the citizens united supreme court decision earlier this year. this type of activity, prior to that decision, was illegal. if you are exxonmobil, service

employees international union, the u.s. chamber of commerce, you can go ahead on television, the radio, spend as much money as you want and raise this from as many people as you want or as many corporate treasurers, union treasuries, and try to tear down or promote any political candidate who is running in the federal election, state election, or local election. again, you cannot just go ahead and give the money directly to a politician. as we have seen, we saw hundreds of millions of dollars just in this election cycle alone to absent the presidential election, with these outside organizations be it a corporation or, in most cases, organizations never trade unions, trade associations, non- profit organizations, taking in this money. you did not know who the source of the donor was and still do not.

if your house you can make the communication, promote this candid, tear a candid it down, promote or tear down a candidate. host: we showed some of the poorest members of the senate. senator record is it worth about $660,000. one of our twitter followers says, "forced member of the senate with $600,000? where does that put them with respect to the general population"? guest: a good point. even when you look at the "poorest" members of the senate, they are not for with respect to the americans. i do not know the original of americans "-- relative to the senate, but we are looking at five figures relative to the mid to high six figures.

host: the leventhal from opensecrets.org. caller: the biggest cost to the american people are the senators and congressman. we are paying them on god the amounts of money. they get in trouble, then we paid to take care of them. they want to cut my benefits. i do not understand it. our biggest cost is them. if i did my job like they do their job, i would be fired. i do not understand it. every time i expressed my opinion, i am red flag at the va. host: we will not red flag you. thank you for calling in. guest: every american with the ability to vote has the ability to hire and fire any member of congress that they want to. it is more frequent for members of the house than it is in the senate, two years versus six

years, four years for the president. this is why we have the election process that we do. we feel it is critical that people educate themselves to become an informed voter, do their homework, be their own best reporter, and he is websites such as opensecrets or the myriad of other organizations that do a lot of great work and figure out whether they really, really like what they are getting out of their member of congress who they have sent to represent them. if you do not like it, do not like the person, do not like the actions they take, not happy with the personal investments they make, take this information into account when you go into the ballot booth. use that power and knowledge that you had and take action. host: 1% of americans are millionaires and between average 40%-50% of the u.s. house and senate consists of millionaires. a call from the bahamas.

caller: for example, i am not a big fan the congress being multimillionaire's. there have been bought and sold by the lobbyists even before they get there. they have all of these perks, trips. my question is about a representative from san diego, darrell issa. he was a navy officer. he was much more wealthy before he is now. he was close to $1 billion. he went into public service, but he did not get wealthy before going to the congress. you may want to clarify that. host: darrell issa leads the list.

his work is over $300 million. guest: we track this for that very reason. the wealth of the members of congress does fluctuate a good bit. between 2007-2008, it did it. the average net worth for the members of congress to about 5% hit which was right in the middle of the economy going sour and the economics in this country going south. yet, they recovered pretty quickly from members of congress when we saw 2008 to 2009 and the average wealth went up by 15%. and was a very, very different situation just one year to another. while many americans were struggling and it joblessness was hovering between 9%-10%, the average wealth of members of congress was going up. whether it was darrell issa or others, they are still very rich

when it comes to the upper crust, but they do definitely take kids or boosts depending on how their investments do. host: looking at the senate, senator kerry who married into his wealth, senator mark warner who made his money before running for governor of virginia and is now in the senate, senator kohl who is part of the calls department store family, senator rockefeller inherited his wealth. how much of this is before they sought public office and how much is made while in office? guest: many members of congress before elected come in very wealthy. they made their money in business. they made their money in investments. they are coming in as millionaires, multimillionaire's, and in a couple of cases millionaires that had their wealth ranging in nine figures. that does not preclude them from keeping investments in place

once they get into congress. while most of them come in relatively wealthy, congressional salaries, while generous, was not earning millions of dollars in and of themselves. members of congress are definitely keeping the irons in the hot fires that they are in and are generating big, big dollars for them which is why you see the fluctuations, why you see lawmakers who are already very wealthy continuing to get wealthy, getting richer, and richer, and richer. host: from tuscaloosa, alabama, you are next. caller: good morning. i've been like to point out that it is extremely expensive to run for congress. it is no wonder the people who get elected are rich. they could not get elected if they were not. i want to bring out its background question. is not it the dirty little secret of government that most

federal income taxes are paid by the rich? if there is only a small number of rich people, then most of the money coming in through the federal income tax is coming from that small number of rich people. dirty little secret of government that they have to encourage rich people to make more money, they have to support it to make possible for richer people to become richer because it is where their money is coming from taxes? if we discourage people from becoming a rich, there will be less money coming in to the federal government. it seems to me like a basic principle that no one ever points out. host: thank you, nancy. did you have a final point? caller: no. host: thank you for the call. guest: certainly if you are

welcome to you will pay more taxes whether you are in congress for private business. if you make millions of dollars, you will pay more in taxes than a person who has a modest salary. to the caller's first point that she initially made, as a site now, she mentioned that it is very expensive to actually run a campaign. that is very true. the average winner of a u.s. house race in 2008, and we are still calculating the numbers for 2010, was about $1.4 million. it was about 8.5 bunyan dollars on the senate side. absolutely it takes -- it was $8.5 million on the senate side. absolutely it takes a lot of money. one phenomenon we have seen across the years that has played out in grand fashion during this election cycle was when the infinitely wealthy spend millions of dollars on their rahm campaigns, they actually do

very poorly. these self funded candidates, the linda macmahons and other people who spend seven figures on their own congressional races out of their own pocket, only about one in five, at least at the federal level, actually won. yes, money is an essential element to winning a congressional campaign, but you have to consider the source of the money. yet to consider the type of the money. all types of money are certainly not created equal which is particularly the case when you look at self funded candidates who do not generally do very well. host: you can join the conversation on line at twitter. over 40% of congress are millionaires. this is not a representative government. guest: a lot of people have made that point that it is not a representative government.

40%-50% millionaires in congress year in and year out and only 1% or less of americans are saying the same thing about themselves? there is definitely a gap. there is a disconnected. you can say that is a good thing, a bad thing, we make no judgment on it one way or another, but we think it is important that people do realize that. if you are upset, great. do something about it. host: we are talking about money, politics, and the gulf of members of congress. from harrison, mich., with dave levinthal of opensecrets.org. caller: by may 70-year-old senior citizen that is having problems to survive. the more i watch the news, the more i cried. host: can you turn the television set volume down? caller: turn it off, john.

anyways, i am trying to survive in harrison, michigan. my point is that this country is planting so many trees that no one can see the forest anymore. what is burning me up now on the inside, and i believe i am right, is this trip to afghanistan, again, with the president. he has done this twice and it is no more than a campaign for the 2012 election. is burning me up inside. i believe i am right. i believe is a political ploy that the taxpayers pay for. god bless me if i am wrong. host: you can turn the television back up and dave leventhal will answer your point. guest: with the look of a president's whether it is a barack obama, george w. bush, bill clinton, go back to dwight eisenhower if you want to. presidents have always traveled. they always crisscross the

country and in the more recent years have gone on across the world. george w. bush made a lot of trips to afghanistan, iraq, and the war efforts going on. barack obama has done the same. this is not something that is unique to a republican or a democrat. they have all done it. he is the president of the united states. george w. bush was the president of united states and there are certain travel requirements that are going to happen as a result of being the most powerful leader in the world. i do not know if it is anything that is particularly new or different given that it is barack obama, george w. bush, or any other chief executive. host: another look at the richest members of the senate. from the grove, aloi, an airline for republicans. -- elkgrove, ill. caller: i called on the republican line but i am a

liberal conservative. i want to make a comment on the figures you are putting up there about the network. previous callers had made a good point it is important how they made their money, inherited it, worked for it. even if you inherit it, your family still worked for it. in more poignant figure would be to measure the net worth of of political leaders before they got into political office compared to what they're worth the now because if you look at a lot of poor countries, south america for example, they fear people to get into politics when they are for -- poor because they rate the country for as much as they can. and more poignant figure would be to the difference between -- to note what they are worse before in the congress and after. guest: a very good point, and we have a limited ability to

demonstrate that. you can extrapolate with the more wealthy people who have come to congress. when you do get into congress and are a candidate for congress, you do have to file these mandatory federally mandated reports on an annual basis that require you to list certain aspects of your wealth and a detailed them in these ranges that are provided in these reports. q. do not have an analogy for that when you are just simply a private citizen. the access to that type of information, you would not get the same type from people who have not been elected to congress or are not running for congress. certainly we would love to see and make that comparison because it would be very, very interesting. the caller, in addition to a number people, would definitely like to see it, but it would be difficult to do any practical sense because you do not have the type of reporting for the average american whereas you do for members of congress. host: "i contributed quite a

few small amounts between $5.20 dollars. one wonders if you should bother." guest: if you make a $10 donation, a $50 donation, will that compete with the people making the $1,000, $2,000, matching at $2,400 for a particular candidate for an election cycle? some people say now. on the other hand, you see some candidates he had a great deal of success raising the bulk of their money from people we consider to be smaller downers, making those incremental $10, $15 from $20 contributions. some candidates have had a great amount of success as a result of people making those donations. is $10 at the end of the day really going to make a difference? probably not, but when you couple $10 here and there all

across the district or state, or all across the country, then you do have power. it is just like voting. one vote will not turn a race on its head, but when you get one vote here and there, that is when you get power. host: marietta georgia on our independent line. good morning. caller: there is a point to be nastier. -- point being missed her. this is about citizens united. the amount of money going in from the oil companies benefited the oil companies, but gasoline is half the cost in the united states that it is anywhere else. the unions came in and give a lot of money. what happened to their money? they have exemptions under obamacare that no one else has. it really does not matter how wealthy the congressman are if

what the particular party -- it is what the party does with the influence. if it makes gasoline less in the united states, it is good. that is my comment. people need to look at this a little closer. thank you. guest: that is why we do what we do on opensecrets.org. you can look at every member of congress and find out which industries, which special interests are backing them and have backed them with hard cash both in the corporate or union political action committees. we can take a step further and identified specific donors and who they work with, whether they are executives for companies, powerful people within the union, whether they run special- interest groups, and can tie their money to specific members of congress are candidates. conversely, we can look at this from an industry and special-

interest standpoint. we can take the oil and gas industry, environmental special interests, unions, any group you can imagine and show who they are supporting institution in for the members of congress, candidates their supporting. whether you are liberal, conservative, an independent, republican, democrat, we want people to use this information and use our web site so they can see for themselves and track the information so they are not talking into the wind and actually using good, hard, cold facts to inform their opinions and inform the way they take action as a voter, a citizen, an activist, or whenever they consider themselves to be. host: on our democratic line from armada, mich. caller: can you hear me? can you hear me all right? my comment is, one, there was a congressman from florida on last

night and they were talking about what the rich people will get back from the kick back of this tax cut. rush limbaugh makes $58 million per year and he will get $2 million back if the republicans have their way. boehner was on the court -- was on the floor of the house having a tax checks -- handing out checks from tobacco companies to members of congress on the floor. at that is true, it should be shown on television. george bush, jr., did not work until he was 40 when his dad bought him the texas rangers. george, senior, did not work. his first job was selling drills when his father was the head of dresser's industry which

is connected to halliburton now. that is how cheney came into texas. dressers was merged into halliburton. they made millions and millions of dollars on the war. it could be proven that they are war profiteers. you saw last night that there are charges showing how the difference in wealth started back in the reagan and bush years and the graph will show you a strong -- that it shot straight up. guest: the caller brings up the point that there are numerous pots of money that exist in politics. that is why we want to try and connect the dots from the

members' personal wealth and investments to the lobbying efforts and the tens of millions of dollars of lobbying efforts that some corporations will put forth here in washington. those are the very corporations that lawmakers themselves are invested in. then you have the issue of campaign finance and the different corporate entities sponsoring political action committees, their employees spending untold riches to actually fuel and fund the campaigns of politicians. it is not just one eyrie here or there. there are connections in between and among all those different pots of money. earmarks have been a hot topic. there have been numerous examples we have pointed out where companies or entities that have lobbied the federal government to a great degree or who have made consider it campaign contributions are the beneficiaries of a lot of earmark money that has come from earmark money that has come from