financial state. scott patterson is our guest. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ ♪ in the news at this hour, the founder of wikileaks has been arrested on a warrant. today is the 69th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor in hawaii.

and the tax-cut deal is making news all over the place. obama sent biden to capitol hill today to sell the tax deal to angry democrats. we want to get your reaction to what we heard the president announced last night. front-page news, everywhere we are looking this morning, "philadelphia inquirer" here is the headline. they are stressing that democrats are not happy about all of this. here is the front page of the "washington times" this morning. and in the "new york post", here was the headline with the big question mark.

let us get to some of the details. if you have not caught up on this, the agreement -- that the president reached with republicans is a tax cut with everyone for a couple of more years. it will extend long-term unemployment benefits for 13 months. it would lower the so security payroll tax by two percentage points for one year. the agreement would continue tax breaks for students in families. it would set the state tax rate to 35% in the individual exemption at $5 million. and it will allow businesses to write of all investments they make next year. we want to bring in bob at this

point in the program. he is the managing editor on the hill newspaper. the vice president will head up to the senate caucus meeting today. what will that be like? guest: a pretty interesting meeting. some democrats will be in a row that are not pleased with this deal. we a party scene senator bernie sanders, an independence to talks with a democrat. he is a liberal and is very upset at this deal. liberals in congress will be very upset about this deal, because it is a big tax cut measure. they do not feel that they got enough out of the deal. unemployment benefits was very important to the democratic party. that will be extended for 13 months. joe biden is going to have a tough sell to members. to other members, especially those up for reelection in red

states in 2012, it will not be a hard sell. they want to minimize the damage from the ranks of the democrats on capitol hill, give as many votes as they can from the democratic caucus on the senate and the house side. they note there is going to be a fair amount of noise coming from liberals and a fair amount of notes when this thing is finally voted upon. >> on the republican side, the leadership, there is a headline this morning. it says the republican rank is an easy. tell us more. guest: some of them were saying about the aspects of this deal. unemployment benefits trading for the tax cuts. some republicans do not feel that the unemployment benefit should be extended. republican leaders have said

they are for that, but it should be paid for. as part of the deal, the details are still emerging, it does not appear that they will be completely offset. some republicans, including an incoming senator ran paul has said unemployment benefits have gone for two years. it is time to stop it. there are some on the right that will be an easy with this, because it extends the unemployment benefits and does not look like it pays for it. some believe the unemployment benefits should stop right now. it is expensive, about $5 million. host: they will want to split the pricetag for this bill. moving forward a little bit further for us, first explain what was the reality for the president and republican leaders to put this on the table? guest: the president did not

have a -- the votes for his tax plan. in the house, it passed, but did not pass overwhelmingly. over the weekend on saturday, both in the senate, one on his plan did not have the votes to pass. democrats believe this is not the time to raise taxes as the economy is ailing. the white house has known for a long time they would have to strike a deal. for months, we were thinking they would have to extend the bush tax cuts. republicans are not going to bend on that. they were able to bend and compromise on the unemployment benefits, extending them for another year. this is the best deal the president could get. he also wants to get to this pending u.s. russia all arms treaty done this year. it is very important to the right house. they have been pushing on this

and joe biden will speak about this today. a key negotiator in the tax-cut deal said if we are going to get that treaty done, we have to get the tax deal done. the white house knew they were not going to get the best deal possible. i agree with what he said earlier that the payroll tax holiday is the biggest surprise. that is something that few expected to come out of this deal. host: we have several calls to get to, but we want to talk to you about another story. , whatadership's election ever we are calling them, three specific races that have gotten a lot of interest, such as the appropriations committee. can you lay this out for us? guest: the members have made their case to the republican steering committee which will be voting today to decide the chairman for the energy and commerce committee, financial

services committee. that is between the ranking member from alabama. he is probably the favorite against ed royce. when you look of the appropriation status, that is the closest battle. it is fairly wide open. three contenders. one from kentucky, jerry lewis from california, and one from georgia. all of them have been braced the call for a moratorium on your marks. there are some groups that would get this, and the anti-earmark groups are not fond of any of them. they want them to erase the moratorium. some have claimed that jack kingston is the cleanest of the three. he has picked up some key

endorsements. that is going to be a close one. he has had some momentum moving forward as they have made this decision. the energy and commerce committee from michigan. some conservatives endorsed joe. they feel he is the more conservative member. joe barton would need a waiver, because he is the ranking member or chairman for six years. the rule says in order to continue on as the top republican on any committee, you will need a waiver. he is likely to get that. a pretty good campaign and kept his name in the mix. a couple of candidates, fred upton should be next in the energy and commerce chairman. host: a lot on our plates.

guest: absolutely. host: let's get to your calls on the republicans and the president reaching a compromise. here is another headline. first call, houston, texas, and democrats line. caller: good morning. i am just livid. let me tell you why. president obama seems to have no fight for backbone whatsoever. have the republicans taking over the house and senate. the blue dog democrats, the democrats are always [unintelligible] i do not care if it is the wrong

thing in the whole country goes down to scrap, the republicans will stick together. let the tax cuts expired. -- expire. let them take their social security and see how it is going to be. i want the democrats to defeat it. host: let me jump in. the president says i am not willing to let working families. caller: i do not care about the working families. the republicans do not care about the working families. nobody cares about of them. we have to stand up and i hope the democrats defeated. what is going to stop the republicans when they get in there next year and extend the taxes when they have control? host: thanks for calling. let's get a republican on the

line from california. caller: well, that was interesting. i am from zero high, california. -- ojai, california. somebody should stick together in the republican party. in regards to the unemployment, we saw this coming a long time ago. we could of been planning for this extension of the unemployment benefits. a lot of people, in a lot of americans are out of work, but they are getting used to it. like children being home and their parents saying get a job. we have to get these people back to work. as far as the tax cuts, the bush tax cuts as far as the bridge goes, let's possibly have some

initiative where you put that money back into the economy. the 10 grand a that is going to be taxed, reinvest that into the economy so it can be brought back to you in some form or fashion. all of these democrats that have some sort of a right to say how many homes a person can have or how much money a person can have -- i wish some of these people could listen to what they are saying. it is really appalling. host: thanks. we have an independent scholar from buffalo, new york. caller: a couple of points i want to make. i think the tax deal is good. if someone is willing to go out and work hard, why should they have their taxes raised. it kills incentive for people to

go out and work hard if you're going to take more money away from them. i am glad the unemployment benefits have been extended. there is not much work to do of their. there are not many jobs. i am discouraged when i hear people say enough is enough. some people want to go to work, but there is nothing to do. if we want to pay for it all, maybe we cut our foreign aid. maybe we need to cut that in half and use it to take care of people right here in our country. host: i appreciate your call. the details with this deal between the president and the republicans -- joe biden is going to the hill to talk to democrats about all of this. the lame duck session draws to an end. the agreement would extend tax cuts for two years for everyone. the long-term unemployment benefits would be extended for another 13 months through next

year. the were so security payroll tax to percentage points for one year. the deal will continue tax breaks for students and families. tax rate at 35% with an individual exemption of $5 million. businesses can write off all investments they make next year. here is a little bit of the president from last week. >> i have no doubt that everyone will find something in the compromise that they do not like. there are things in here that i do not like, the extension of tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. these tax cuts will expire in two years. i am confident that as we make tough choices about bringing our deficit down, as i engaged in a conversation with the american people about the hard choices we will make to secure our future, our children's future, our grandchildren's future, it will become apparent that we cannot

afford to extend those tax cuts in the longer. host: from the "washington post". the next call is from chicago, democrats line. caller: yesterday when i watched him and he laid out what he

wanted to do, as a liberal, i was highly disappointed. this morning i realize what the president was doing, showing a nobility of character. there was something that i remembered about king solomon, supposedly the wises king ever. when two people wanted to the take a baby. to remedy the situation, he said divided the baby in half. the one that was the mother was willing to give up the baby rather than see it be cut in half. it seems like the president is saying, we have millions of people who would not get unemployment. they need that now. i think he realizes that that is

unacceptable. he knows the republicans do not care. i would do the best thing for the country and il or will i be like the republicans and go and do what i want. that shows his nobility. host: thanks. staying in chicago, on the other side of the aisle, a republican. caller: i just wanted to say thank you. good morning. i wanted to say i am so totally happy that obama and congress agreed to extend the bush tax cuts for america. it is a start. host: anything else? caller: have a wonderful and blessed day.

from indiana.ear welcome to the program. caller: i just want to say, america, you have to pay attention. our president has been the only grown-up in the room. he is like the baby sitter that is caring for unruly, spoiled brats, namely the gop. he did what he had to do, and i support him 1000%. let us make sure the gop does not say, you one. i voted democrat in the midterms. i stuck with my party no matter what. america, this is what you've

got. you deserve what you get. the gop is going to try to do more damage these next two years. pay attention. i totally support the president. host: more reaction from the papers. they are talking about this payroll tax holiday. unlike most tax breaks, it will be available to taxpayers at every income level . a small blurb in the new york times, $900 billion over the next two years. it would be financed by adding to the national debt.

also in the times this morning. the next call, arlington, virginia. caller: i was a little disappointed. the best way to approach this was for congress to except that today agreed that these tax breaks would end after 10 years for everybody. on a couple of occasions they

agreed to that. the president said earlier, we are solving the deficit problems by having this commission report. now the commission could not reach an agreement under the terms they set out. the terms will continue for another couple of years. in thether 2% cut employer tax for social security. i thought so security had problems and they wanted to cut taxes there. this is not a credible solution, he specially when the two years will end in 2012. it would have created an incentive to move ahead with the presidential commission. they did not do that. now we will have a fight for the next couple of years. we will see a lot of loss of confidence. that is the biggest downfall.

host: brooklyn, n.y., democrats. caller: i think the deal is good. i have a question. there is a lot of misinformation floating around on the internet and the media. on one news station they say the unemployment benefits for 9 million people includes one group whose benefits ran out months ago. and the newly unemployed, the 2 million who benefits are just running out. it seems that president obama only wanted that for the 2 million unemployed. can you clarify fill it is for? host: let's see if we can dig out statistics for you. there is a lot about this in the paper. is the unemployment most important for you? caller: yes. i have been without benefits for months.

my last paycheck was in march. host: let's hear from the president a bit more on all of this. >> i am not willing to let working families across the country become collateral damage for political warfare here in washington. i am not willing to let our economy slid backwards just as we are pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession. i am not willing to see 2 million americans whose stint to lose their unemployment insurance at the end of this month be put in a situation where they might lose their home, their car, or suffer additional economic catastrophes. host: more of the reaction in the papers today. senator mitch mcconnell says this. senator bernie sanders from vermont says this.

southampton, n.y., independent. good morning. caller: what was not brought out was 60 minutes with the head of the federal reserve bank increasing the deficit by $1 trillion. he said he would add that amount of money from u.s. taxpayers money to the bank of england, german banks, swiss banks come

in the swedish banks. these were from trading losses in oil. as the "new york times" said, he took that worthless assets. you have $1 trillion given out backed by the federal reserve bank. it is really going to be paid for by u.s. taxpayers. host: tightest together with the subject at hand here, this tax cut deal. caller: you are talking about increasing the deficit by $300 billion. that is what the u.s. taxpayers are on the hook for. but here is ben bernanke, getting a subpoena from the federal court, so that he can contribute $1 trillion of u.s. taxpayers' money and send it oversees to supposedly wealthy countries. host: d.c. an argument about

keeping taxes where they are will allow people to spend more and improve the economy-callery? caller: people in need money for loans to spur the economy. you cannot take $1 trillion of u.s. cash and senate overseas to bail out banks, when the u.s. economy and u.s. banks allowed to go bankrupt. they gave millions to citicorp and out of the blue, they gave 7 $8 billion to the union bank of switzerland. -- $78 billion to the union bank of switzerland. that is an important issue. host: republican line, houston. caller: i am more of an independent opinion. i am just wondering the -- i grew up poor. reporter in oklahoma.

-- really portion oklahoma. we never got welfare. we made it on our own. we ate a lot of soup. i did not realize that my mother was not as good a good as i remember because we had a lot of campbell's soup. if we are going to tax people, we are going to tax the churches. they are not doing their job taking care of people. they are not taking care of people the way they need to be taking care of. these nonprofit organizations, if people knew how they worked, they are usually owned by a large family and they do not get all of the money. they pay big salaries to their executives. they are taking advantage of this tax deduction. if you are not going to do your

job and take care of the people you are getting a tax exemption for, you need to be taxed. the banks -- this is ridiculous to keep giving money away. i guess it is more of a bribe. host: we will take your calls for 50 more minutes on this topic and we expect more reaction from capitol hill today and this week to all of this. they may end up voting on this in this lame duck session of congress, which is supposed to run for next week. here is a message from twitter. here is a reaction from the "new york times editorial page".

here is how they end the editorial. wilmington, delaware. caller: i am an obama supporter. i understand why he made the deal. i think it is disgusting that to the republican party -- i think they really do not give a damn about the working class in this country. to hold all of those people up, and there are many people like

my daughter who is a 90 niner and family members have to put money together to help pay rent so she would not be in the streets. i think it is really, really disgusting. they really do not give a damn about the working class. the people who nominated them in, i do not know if they are on drugs or what the heck is wrong with them. people are more concerned about getting tax breaks for the wealthy then feeding working people. these are not people sitting around waiting for handouts or medicaid for food stamps. these are people who work every day. they deserve these benefits. they paid into this. host: more from the "washington post."

st. paul was up now. good morning to you. caller: as an independent i get concerned when both extremes hold steady to their positions and then they use derogatory terms to describe the other side. politics is the art of compromise.

president obama, i support him, and it is in part his fault as well as congress for the situation that we are in. congress needs to do the right thing to get things done. i really wish the name calling woodstock. i wish we would -- would stop. we need to [unintelligible] thanks for the opportunity. host: gaithersburg, maryland. caller: i am not happy with the agreement. i would like them to not do anything with the upper income and would like them not to extend the unemployment. this is going to get out of control. the sooner we deal with it, the better off we will be. i was disappointed with what the

commission did. they kicked it to the curb and said, this is what we are going to do. we will kick the debt down another -- kicking the debt problem down the road for another two years. host: next caller. caller: they get it down one minute and then raise it. how can it work for us in any way? if people are down and you keep kicking us. just like this deal [inaudible] people are losing their homes, foreclosures. they cut our wages appear. people were making $30 an hour and now are down to $12 an hour. we have all kinds of problems up here in michigan.

people need to look at us in america instead of overseas. we need people here looking at us host:. host: -- looking at us. host: tallahassee, florida. caller: i wish more americans would ask the pertinent questions. they say it will cost us 700 billion or $900 billion. whatever the figure is. stop the spending. people do not realize that these are projected expenses that they are putting on everyone, and they expect you to pay without asking permission to take your money. whether you are wealthy or not wealthy, it makes no difference. whatever money you earn should not be confiscated to deal with these schemes that some people

have going on in congress. they are not taking care of business. that is why we are in such debt. we need to stop the spending. if we do that, we will be fine and not be in debt. we don't want them to take money from you and redistribute them the way that the obama administration wants to do. host: here is a headline. vice president biden is heading to the hill today. it will be a key meeting in the future of this deal. the democrats have not signed on according to the headlines. the roll call paper says the number of democrats will be imperative for the president himself, personally.

there is also a piece that has this passage. they say they can count on one republican to vote on the deal.

orlando, fla., republican, the morning. caller: 51 to respond to the woman that called it right before you just commented. we have a spending problem not a tax problem. i wish you and the media and callers would use the right terminology. what is going on is not a tax cut. it is continuing the tax breaks that we have had in place. it would not be a tax cut. it needs to be clarified. it gives people the wrong impression about what they are talking about. you can have your opinion about whether or not they should be

continued, but it is not a cut. it is continuing the current tax rates or a tax raise. i hope people will use the correct language. host: and other financial story in the financial times. the u.s. treasury will sell their remaining shares of citigroup today. it is free the company from the stigma of government ownership. next call is new hampshire, a democrat. caller: i love how republicans

love to scream from any pulpit they can find and say we cannot have any spending. we have to control the deficit and reduce government spending. a kick and scream and do whatever they can to get a tax cut, and you see republicans spending a lot of money getting people elected to that will cut their taxes and spending more on advertisements and political candidates than they would on taxes in the first place. my second point is president obama has lost all chances for reelection. with the deal he has made, it is simply a waste. every time the gop gets aggressive, he cowers in the corner. he refuses to say i will not raise on the top 2% of

americans. if you want these to expire, i will go to my, proponents and tell them why. they are going to leave him behind. if he gets primary from the left, it will do damage in 2012. host: the gop has gotten their concessions. here is what one viewer writes. an update on this story that we mentioned at the top of the program. the founder of wikileaks surrendered to swedish police today. the organization faces technological challenges. they release hundreds of secret diplomatic information. he will challenge his

extradition to sweden. a judge will will on whether or not to extradite him. one spokesperson said this from the extradition department. we will let you know more as we get it. next caller is from florida. caller: it is a wonderful day in the neighborhood. it is because of the rates extended. we are starting to move in the right direction. i like the part of it that gives businesses a deduction for investing in the growth of their company. i like the part where the state tax is raised to $5 million. and the percentage cut to 35%. host: what do you make of this

$900 billion price tag being added to the federal debt? caller: i do not like that. he should take the rest of the stimulus package that applies to the debt. this administration, every dime they get, they will spend and then borrow to pay the bill. this is typical of a socialist or liberal government. hopefully, the next election we can take care of that. we are moving in the right direction. we need to continue to do that. we need to hold their feet to the fire and stop spending or cut spending. we need to balance the budget. we need to create an environment where business can grow. under bush we had 54 months of

growth in the economy. unemployment was around 4.7%. compare that today and where it is probably close to 20%. host: republican line from oklahoma city. caller: i was listening to this end i had a strong bonds about the tax breaks. we need them desperately. we do not need taxes raised by any means. we do not need to further the deficit by having unemployment extensions. they are not in article one section 8 of the constitution. congress has no authority to pay people not to work. maybe that is something states can do for people. maybe they would put up with that kind of mess.

in a legitimate session of congress, not this lame-duck session, we need to attack the income tax itself squarely. that is also unconstitutional. there is nothing that gives congress the power to use a direct tax on the incomes of americans. that is marxist. it is not in the constitution. it is anti-constitutional. that amendment needs to be repealed. then we will see a better economy from people not having to pay that direct attacks. -- tax. we need to go back to the constitutional forms of taxes. right now we do not have constitutional spending. host: thanks for calling.

we have time for one more. at 10:00 a.m., the senate takes up the impeachment trial of a judge for articles of impeachment. anyone of them get a two-thirds votes, the judge will be removed from the bench. the last call here on this topic, nyc, a democrat. turned down the set sound if you can. -- please turn down the set sound if you can't. caller: [inaudible] by the -- the poor people have to worry about what their next meal is going to be while the rich are worried about whether or not to buy a lobster dinner.

i got my last check in march. i do not understand how he can give an extension to the 2 million and not the rest of the people who do not have a job. there are no jobs out there. it is hard. we pay taxes as well. it is not fair. host: reaction there from lisa and the others earlier. we want to leave you with these words in this segment. elizabeth edwards retreated from public life as her husband had an affair while seeking presidential election. cancer has rattled her body. she was told that a further

cancer treatment will do no good. she may be weeks away from the disease taking her life. here is what she wrote on her face but page. i have found that in the simple act of living with hope and the efforts to have a positive impact on the world, it is made more meaningful and precious. for that i am grateful. that is on the facebook page of elizabeth edwards. we will take a short timeout and then talk about the u.s. south korea trade agreement that was announced late last week. our guest for the next segment will take a position on it from the global trade watch. and we will hear your calls when we come back. ♪ ♪

>> fourth amendment rights an illegal search and seizure, it marks the supreme court cases this weekend on saturday at 7:00. >> there was no record of a search warrant. >> listen to the argument on c- span radio. you can hear it nationwide and online c-span.org. >> middle and high school students, as you work your documentary for the c-span competition coming here are some tips from our judges. >> one of the things i look forward to is you, the student. i want to see you in your personality which makes your video stand out from all of the

rest. >> what i look for most is a real investment and care in the topic that you will be telling us about. be interested in what you are telling us. if you are not interested, chances are we will not be either. >> 1 tie-breaker for me was the requirement on using c-span video. i am looking for videos where they have looked at the c-span content and said and what elements make the most sense for telling a compelling story that i am trying to tell. >> for all of the rules including the month, price information, and how to apply your video, go to c-span.org. >> the c-span network provides coverage on politics, american history, and other topics. it is available online and on social networking media sites. we have our c-span library and c-span on the road with our

local content vehicles, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way. it is created by cable provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: here at the table is a guest to talk to us about the trade tax that still needs approval in congress. it was announced this past weekend. what is in this deal? guest: this is an agreement that was originally negotiated by president bush in 2007. it has the full model of the foreign investor protections, financial-services role. it deals with what types of policies we can use. tariff cuts and rules about the order of the food safety and

private inspection. it covers the full range, not so much trading but more commerce. host: it gives five years to phase out of a 2.5% tariff it has on the cargo for self correa. what is your view? guest: the itc is the independent government agency that analyzes all u.s. trade agreements. i think their analysis on the tariff cuts and in tariffs going to zero [unintelligible] i think what the itc said it will increase the u.s. trade deficit. they think it would cost 100 to 9000 u.s. dollars, mainly in manufacturing but not -- 150,000 u.s. dollars mainly in

manufacturing. host: here are the phone numbers that you can call. our guest is director of the public citizen's global trade watch. we will dig into some of the details. how big is the u.s. and south korea trade? many do not know this. the trade in 2009, $67.8 billion. $39.2 billion u.s. exports. what is your take on that number? -- $39.2 billion in u.s. imports. what is your take on the number? guest: we have done a series of trade agreements.

those relatively speaking have been smaller countries. this is a huge manufacturing country. we have an $11 billion trade deficit to there in manufacturing goods creating a huge player. for u.s. jobs in competitiveness -- this is in the debate about this particular agreement. host: what does this mean to you overall for the country? guest: it is a bad idea in the circumstance. almost 10% unemployment. they should consider implementing another trade agreement, given what has happened since nasa went into effect in 1994. it has lost $5.5 million of manufacturing jobs. median wages where they burned

the most in inflation control places. it declined to 1972 levels. even those that support the nasa think a large share of those declines deals with our policies. not just nasa but china as well. we have seen a huge export of u.s. jobs. there is a role in these agreements to promote those outcomes. we should not replicate things that we see damaging. host: one person's vote in north carolina about it. the president. >> we can closer to meeting that goal by finalizing the trade agreement with our allies, south korea. this nation offers one of the fastest-growing markets for american goods. in north carolina and across the country, many say we are not sure that helps us. it may hurt us in areas like furniture.

right now, the status quo, south korea is selling a whole bunch of stuff here. we are not selling it there. the current deal is not a good one for us. there are many hyundais on the road. .here is not as many ford's some have said let's cut any deal without thinking ahead about how this will impact americans. this boosts our annual exports by $11 billion. it will support it least 70,000 american jobs. 70,000 american jobs. [applause] host: exports and jobs. guest: he only talks about the exports and it will only support 70,000 jobs. a trade balance is like our bank

account. if you only look at the deposits with out looking at what you take out, you will never balance your book. the international trade commission says that caribbean imports would grow even faster. we would set a bigger -- south korean imports would grow even faster, so we will have a bigger deficit. you would lose jobs. we lost 159,000 jobs to this agreement. and with our unemployment so high, that is unconscionable. host: our first caller is on the line for democrats. caller: this is my issue. i have been involved with free trade and the damage it has done to our country for years. if you want accurate information, there is nobody better than this guest.

the website is fabulous. they have tremendous search facilities and everything you wanted to know. it is that accurate, absolutely right. i am afraid of groundhog day. we will see the same thing that happened with clinton where ever democratic president does mo -- more damage to the country and the work force than any republican has ever done. i am afraid we are seeing that again. i hope that a public revolt can be led. we have to stop this. it is killing us. host: what do you think about this going forward? guest: i pretty much have the same view. we have a lot of information on our website. the polling shows the majority of americans agree. and the phenomenon has become bipartisan.

manufacturing jobs have been wiped out. thousands lost since nasa. small-business owners, management, according to the most recent "wall street journal" nbc poll, a huge majority of republicans, democrats, independents comity ea parties.tr they need to know what this is. and congress has to agree to it. host: hello. this is one of my favorite subjects. i think we have a 14 active trade agreements and trade deficits with every place. d our country agutte

chance to rebuild ourselves. it seems these trade agreements are negotiated by people that we never hear of. we do not know anything about them. it seems so lopsided. every couple of months, mexico can slap a new tariff on us and we have no defense against that. it is as though somebody wakes up every morning and says, what more can we do to destroy america? these trade agreements are simply a vehicle for businesses to go offshore and make more profit, at least that is the perception. i think the perception has become a reality. host: what would you like to add? guest: what is important is who

negotiates them. are almost 1000 official corporate advisers -- there are almost 1000 official corporate rogers, trade advisers, who get access to documents. there are some labor unions in there, but it is not even a balanced hand full. there is no consumer group with representation, for instance family farmers or groups representing the elderly. the trade agreements represent very narrow, special interests. we could have trade agreements that would beef -- be good for all of us. it is not magic. with career, it is literally identical to nafta, ca -- with korea, it is literally identical to nafta and cafta, it means we know what we're going to get. host: good morning.

lawrence yun i caller: was going that ask about that. we walk around with r or d on our forehead and we do not care who is running as long as they have that emblem. we better get on of that mode -- out of that road and make congress be held accountable. the trade agreement people we have now came out of the insane asylum. guest: yes, sir -- although not on the insane asylum, although that may be accurate well. -- accurate as well. the only good news is that we get to decide. for each of us, calling their members of congress, telling them how we feel about the agreement is really important.

it matters. i will tell you why it matters even more now. in this last election, 208 of the current members of congress ran, criticizing the trade status quo. they got elected, many of them, including republicans, pledging to not do more nafta's. we need to tell them, if you support the agreement, we do not support you. we have in our control to send this agreement back and try to get some then that will not kill jobs. we have to do that. host: what is the process? the president and the career leader have their agreement. there are problems on both sides. what is the process on the hill? guest: this agreement has a very arcane procedure called fast track. it was originally created by richard nixon. under that procedure, congress cedes its normal trade

authority -- which it has exclusively on trade -- it gives back to the president. what happens next is the present this as an legislation implementing this agreement to congress -- to congressget -- the president gets to send legislation implementing this agreement to congress. they have to come out of committee, go to the floor, 15 days, mandatory vote, no amendments allowed, 20 hours of debate, the same in the senate. it is a legislative luge run. we basically need to get our members of congress to find out what is in it and to let them know what we feel. if the majority of americans think this is good, then

congress should pass it. if the majority of americans, as the polls show, do not want this, then congress should not pass it. it is a very interesting dynamic. in this last election, of the incoming, freshmen republicans, quite a few of them campaigned against these trade agreements, and understandably. it is a very important point -- what is our country's strength? our manufacturing base. one did not pulling shows united -- one thing that polling shows we are united on is no more trade agreements. many of the incoming freshmen talked about national security, having our manufacturing base strong. others talked about preserving the middle-class. what is our democracy without a class?

there is no middle class there is no manufacturing. there is no manufacturing if we keep doing these trade agreements. the incoming class of freshmen have a very different position than when the reboot -- then where the republican leadership is. their lock, stock, and barrel for it -- they are lock, stock, and there'll for -- and barrel for it. there are some very strong and smart republicans to have foresight and say they are for trade, acknowledging this is not a good idea. host: take us deeper into your strategy, especially on the gop side. what does that do to your effort? guest: it does not change it that much. this is about letting the american people know that this is another nafta-style agreement

that will kill jobs and increase the trade deficit. american public should understand that the new deal that president obama just signed does not change that. as a result, whether you are democrat or republican or independent, this is going to affect you do you have it in your control. it is one of these issues -- it does not matter your political official asian. this agreement -- it does not matter what your political affiliation is. this agreement has a whole chapter about the regulation of financial services. it was signed before the financial crisis. parts of that chapter of this agreement forbid things like limit on a ridge to london to services or goods. it does not allow regulation based on the size of the firm. -- like limitations or

regulations to services or goods. it allows for an corporations -- for incorporations to privately enforced this. -- foreign incorporations to privately enforced this. 300 of these are established from korea in the u.s. right now. it will be able to demand compensation from the treasury, the taxpayer, for any domestic policy that they think undermines their right as foreign investors under the agreement. under nafta, $400 million have been paid out in these cases. things like zoning, land use, health laws -- the domestic company has to meet those. the foreign companies get compensated. host: let's go back to our calls. ruby for democrats in denton, texas. are you there?

caller >> the question i want to ask is -- caller: the question i would ask is -- we have a lot of old people who've been injured on the job, cannot work anymore. all we keep hearing is that things keep coming further down. paying out the money is not coming down. it is taken all of that away from new -- taking all of that away from you. we have nothing to support us other than our family or whatever little money you are getting. it has to go to the nursing home. that is where you're going because you cannot take care of yourself. my thing on that is -- what is helping us? can you tell me -- give me an answer -- where is there

something to help us? we done work hard and made our money worked -- worked hard and made our money. where are the jobs at? all of the jobs are either getting smaller, meaning they pay less money, or you do not have a job. host: lori wallach. guest: yes, ma'am. the issue, happily, is in our control. it is not an act of god that we have these trade agreements that have exported over 5 million u.s. manufacturing jobs. it is bad policy. we can change that. it will not be easy. there are a lot of people in the same circumstance. people are very upset. the korea agreement would make that worse. the only way we're going to change it is by making members

of congress, particularly now -- this will be the biggest trade agreement since nafta. this is the big point where there will either be a turnaround -- hopefully, we will get a different model of trade when this is defeated. there is one out there that can help bring us good, high-paying steady jobs. it can be done. it is in the our control, but we cannot sit by the sidelines. -- it is in our control, but we cannot sit on the sidelines. host: let's hear from joshua on our republican line. caller: a good morning. i want to thank you for everything you do. and 20 years old. 10 years ago, my father owned -- i am 20 years old. 10 years ago, my father owned a couple of small businesses.

it was very different. hundreds of thousands of jobs lost -- what are they thinking? what are they thinking? to give up jobs in this recession -- whenever you want to call it -- it is ridiculous. i work 70 hours a week as a kitchen manager. it is all i can do, all i can find. most of my friends, most people i know are struggling without any job at all. when is it going to get better. how long is it going to take? what do we have to do, what do we have to do to change? >> -- host: your response. guest: your generation hasted make congress represent your interests. we have republicans, democrats,

independents. the american people, across the board have had it with these jobs trade agreements. we're seeing in our country's strengths gutted. that was one of the caller's phrases. this has to stop. we need to come up with a new trade policy. 150 hours of congress have sponsored a bill -- members of congress have sponsored a bill that would be a win for us. we need to pass that legislation. nafta's need to stop. it really does matter. particularly when members of congress saw what happened when their constituents are heartbroken, disappointed,

betrayed. they will listen to you now, especially. calling is the thing to do more than writing. host: lori wallach has worked on capitol hill, for electoral campaigns, and for tv news and is founder of the citizens trade campaign. she is the director of public citizen's global trade watch. citizen.org/trade. from green's bill -- greensville, ohio, our next caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. a question i have is, how does this trade pact actually help the united states? does it help us in any way? i hear the obvious ways how it will hurt us as for is losing

jobs and losing our manufacturing, our ability to export our manufacturing. host: do you see any good? guest: a guess it depends -- i'd guess that it depends. the banks -- this is the regulatory and gives them new rights in korea. if the banks of the united states -- that is not what i think -- then they are happy. a lot of big u.s. manufacturing companies are happy. the automobile companies are in favor of this. why? because of the exchange between u.s. and korean cars being exchanged duty-free.

this goes back to whether it is good for america. a korean car companies are celebrating this because it will increase their market share in the u.s. for most americans, there is not an upside. one argument is that mrs. -- that this is good for our peace and security in, even if we lose jobs and have all these problems. i do not buy that. in career, this pact is despised by the public. -- in korea bang and -- in korea, this pact is despised by the public. there are a sovereign country like we are and the democracy -- they our sovereign country like

we are and a democracy. they do not think this is right. there have been huge protest on the street since the deal -- huge protests on the street since the deal was announced. host: on new -- "obama and trade." what a long, strange trip it has been for the south korea-u.s. free trade agreement. the two sides announced this week and that they have reached a deal on revolution -- on revisions to the draft that was signed in 2007 but never ratified. the president rediscovered its benefits once in office. he was forced to reopen negotiations to justify his earlier opposition. the result of the deal is slightly better than the excellent 2007 tax in some ways, but slightly worse and the others.

this is after a delay that has cost the u.s. global credibility on economic issues, not to mention the cost to u.s. growth." any thoughts to that? guest: is not surprising that "the wall street journal" would be in favor of this. they are chronic offshorers. the news coverage has been how controversial this is. how many americans and members of congress -- how many people are wondering, basically, what one of the callers said -- what the heck are they thinking to do another one of these? president obama did run against the spirit is very disappointing, given the opportunity that he had to do what he promised -- did run against this. it is very disappointing, given the opportunity that he had to do what he promised. he has dropped the ball. it is on the american public and

congress to ensure that a state does not become national policy. host: a democratic caller. caller: i'm calling to make a suggestion. we should bring americans across the board, independents and the democrats, republicans -- we're losing a country. it does not mean who we put into office. they're all in the pockets of wall street and the big corporations. one thing this country can do -- a people can unite. anything that has ever gotten done this country is because of movement -- whether civil rights, labor laws, women's rights. i think democrats -- every citizen across the country should come to the other on these issues. there would be more income for the government. if we threaten washington with the national work stoppage and

said, this is stuff that we want done, these trade agreements, this stuff across the board -- everybody should unite. have a national work stoppage to send a message to washington. it does not matter who we send up there. the country was united around obama and his promises. this is coming from a democrat. the promises he made throughout the campaign -- he is not sticking to any of them. host: lori wallach. guest: i think that is a very creative idea. we have to escalate our attention. this trade agreement will cost 159,000 jobs and increase the trade deficit. make sure your members of congress understand how serious we are about this. this is not just some trade agreement. this is the deciding point -- the biggest trade agreement since nafta. we have had 15 years of deficits

to asia. repeating the same thing over and over and expectant a different result is the definition of insanity. we are not insane. we realize that we need to make sure congress represent us. we do have to do something to get congress's attention. the public does not want any more job-killing offshore agreement. host: what other creative ideas are out there? what have you heard? guest: since the announcement was made, all lot of discussion -- there has been a lot of discussion in the tea party world. having a strong america -- that is -- having a strong america that is a with a reduction the things we need an employer our people is a key perspective across the board of the party. this is one of those things that would unite americans who disagree on the other things. this is an issue that is not

left versus right. it is, are you for american jobs, the strength of our country, the manufacturing base, the future for kids? are you for nafta? it is pretty clear where we are. if you die, we can do something about this. host: there are some beef and pork provisions. one viewer, by twitter, and once you to explain the beef provision. guest: this trade agreement covers everything. the issue of beef, pork, textiles, industrial textiles, a washing machines, other white goods -- there are specific issues where the agreement was really lopsided. these agreements to existing taxes called tariffs and phase them out -- take existing taxes called terrace and phase them out. you get special privileges.

the koreans, knowing we were up against the deadline, managed to give very uneven terms. with the cars -- it did not change that much in this agreement. this time, they did not talk much about it. is a tricky issue. korea does not allow imports of u.s. beef from cattle all older than 30 months. the reason why it is not a cow disease only appears in cow's udder 30 months or older -- callas that are 31 or older. years orhat are 30 older.

unfortunately, in career, there is a pretty serious upset about this. -- in korea, there were pretty serious upset about this. on pork, and one of the concessions that korea demanded for lengthening the phase-out of the cuts in the carter, was that we sent them less pork products. the other issues that have been very very tough to do with look what happened financial services -- and very tough to deal with -- what happens with financial services? both the u.s. and korea have passed these reforms. korea has some great ones. it has some good, important pieces that might conflict with

the actual rules of the agreement. host: a couple more calls for our guest. a republican color. go ahead. caller: i appreciate what your purpose is. i wanted to say that people should wake up. because of the border wars, we are now taking in people overseas or from mexico who said that they have to get away from the border war. they have family members who are in this. it is scary. we cannot take all these people and support our own people who are having -- struggling right now. we also have people from china, sweden, different places coming here. we do not seem to have any rules anymore. why does everybody want to come here and there is no jobs? we do not have any jobs. host: lori wallach.

guest: i saw a very sad cartoon not have the nafta immigration policy. it showed how many mexican workers who had been displaced by nafta -- perhaps 3 million mexican farmers came to the u.s. after losing their farms to nafta in 1996. the bottom was today. it showed americans trekking over to mexico because there is more investment by chinese firms and manufacturing on the mexican side of the border. it showed nafta and immigration going the other way -- americans who could not find jobs here looking for a job in mexico. it is not funny. the issue you are raising has to do with what we're going to do in our country to make sure there is a good family supporting middle-class job. the korean people are not happy about this agreement. from their perspective, including the manufacturing workers -- they see that this crazy rule that allows the agreement to have only 35% of

domestic content means that, only -- even for their cars, there will have more chinese, vietnamese, taiwanese parts. even they are against the agreement. it will lose jobs under these rules. it will not be making parts -- 65% of the value will be made more cheaply somewhere else. , it is not as critical for us. it is critical for people in all of the countries with trade, because it will determine whether they can lead a happy life. host: sharon on the line from nebraska. good morning. caller: i agree with the caller from georgia. as individual citizens and americans, we need to take back some of the control of what our government is doing. after all, we are the ones making those purchases.

those agreements are just about the manufacturers -- the businesses trying to expand their markets. if we do not buy that sony television or that sunday sonata monday -- hyundai sonata, the markets will not be here. guest: it is a good thought. people should think about where they are buying from. here is the problem -- so many american brand-name goods, and these trade agreements, are now being produced offshore. the brand maybe american, but production is in china, mexico, someplace else. this goes against a soma the most dangerous parts of this agreement. again, almost word for word, it is not that and taft the -- it is nafta and cafta. it gives companies better deals if they leave, guaranteeing them certain preferential

treatment. it takes away the uncertainty of having to use a foreign court. companies have all kinds of new benefits and privileges if they leave. we have u.s. and in companies producing somewhere else. the thing that is so worrisome about this course -- why we have to not do more of these trade agreements and get new rules -- is because the cutting-age -- cutting edge products are being made elsewhere. it is not by the whips and in -- buggy whips. it is computers, chips, boards. we need those high-and jobs back here. host: lori wallach, director of

the public citizen's global trade watch. thank you for your time. we have 1 1/2 hours left. when we come back, we'll talk about the dream act which may, for both in the house and senate during the land a session -- which may come up for vote in the house and senate during the lame-duck session. >> a new report says members of congress requested almost 40,000 earmarks this year at a cost of over $100 billion. numbers represent the amount represent -- requested, not actually included in legislation. that total was about $16 billion annually. this first of its kind analysis was developed by taxpayers against earmarked, taxpayers for common sense, and washington watch,.com -- and

washingtonwatch.com. arne duncan says that america has to deal with the brutal truth that u.s. students continue to be outperformed. their 14th in reading -- they are 14th in reading, 17th in science, and 34th in math. he was the secretary robert gates -- secretary of defense robert gates was about meeting with hamid karzai. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history, all available on television, radio, online, and on social networking sites.

an accountant anytime on c- span's video library. -- find our content any time on c-span's video library. it is washington your way -- the c-span network is now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> every week and on c-span3, experience american history to be starting -- every weekend on c-span3, experience americans in history tv -- american history tb. visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses as top history professors and leading historians delved into american past. that is all we can come up every weekend -- all weekend, every weekend on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues.

our next guest is here to talk to us about the dream act. what is it? guest: there has been an issue by partisans to force enforcement by any means necessary on an immigration -- on immigration. this has been going on for decades. there is a big push to promote amnesty. but having the unsuccessful at pass an amnesty, which the call comprehensive -- having been unsuccessful at passing an amnesty legislation, they call that comprehensive immigration reform. they feel that the parameters make the bill more appealing. the reason why the dream that is

so controversial is that it is being overlaid against the template of no credibility in the executive for enforcement and a strong sense among the american people that this is not a priority that congress ought to be pursuing in a lame- duck session. the dream act is essentially a big, private bill. in the 1970's, it was about a bribery scandal -- getting a private bill through congress. it is a legal form of graft. people are brought here under a certain age and. they have been here for a certain amount of time. they may be the sponsors to open, but then maybe as old as 30 or 35. through this debate -- this dizzying array of complex versions, harry reid and nancy pelosi are trying to get through this very complex piece of legislation without even

seasoned washington observers understanding what is precisely in the bill, what it entails, and what it means for downstream immigration numbers and policy. it allows certain people to get non-immigrant or temporary status, like a visitor visa status, which can be renewed indefinitely. you can get this if you meet certain educational parameters, get a ged, enroll in college. it is nominally designed to try to encourage people to get an education. you do not have to graduate from college. you can enroll in the military. the idea is, if you graduate, you can get your green card treaty can petition for relatives and then start the --

you can get your green card. you can petition for relatives and get as -- get the chain started. this continues a pattern of politicians -- some politicians, not jeff sessions from alabama -- some politicians continue promising amnesty in a way that promotes further illegal immigration. there is no question that the big batch into the dream act -- the so-called dream act is that it would continue to promote illegal immigration at a time when the administration is attacking the american people who are trying to get the situation under control. host: let me invite the viewer to phone in with questions and comments. we have separate lines for republicans and democrats and independents. we will get your calls in just a couple of minutes. the house and senate could take votes on this item as early as

tomorrow, from what we're reading. we want to show you the other side of the issue from a guest we had on the program on sunday. . here is the clip. guest: wheeler talking about a targeted group who grew up in it -- we are talking about a targeted group of people who grew up here. the are willing to put their lives on a line. we're talking about kids with degrees in science, law, medicine. i have met a lot of people who are very impressive, yet we deny them the opportunity to contribute to the country they grew up in. it does not make sense to me. host: "upstanding, impressive people which braque what is the problem? "upstanding, impressive

people." what is the problem? guest: under an entirely different tableau, they would have been increasing robust employer sanctions and enforcement. it would have supported the arizona immigration law. it would not be in the supreme court trying to attack the employer sanction law. ubermensch and nevers clear signal -- they would be sending a very clear signal. it will solve problems that would prevent recurrence. once again, frank sharry os misrepresenting the bill. you do have the right to petition relatives. we have dramatically underestimated immigration levels. the census is having to adjust their numbers higher than they

projected, soaring to 350 million people. this bill will have downstream implications for that. the administration of the train act will hamstring the department of homes -- of the dream act will hamstring the dhs for years. it will decimate immigration enforcement. people who get benefits under the bill will have equity to argue that their parents should not be deported. when they're 21, they can petition for their parents. then their parents can turn around and petitioned people. it will dramatically increase immigration. what he and his allies are doing is politicizing. it is not going to pass the senate. host: why are they bringing it up now? guest: they are trying to eliminate -- they say this, "alienate hispanic voters from a republican party."

no one denies that people have worked hard and done well, but they are citizens of other countries. what a great message it would be to encourage people to go back to their home countries. it would stop sending the message that, if you come here illegally, you would be rewarded. host: thank you for waiting. color >> -- caller: you had a proponent of the bill who kept saying that there are 11 million illegals in this country. we all know there are 25 million. these people broke along. they are -- broke law. they are criminals. get them out of here. host: is it that simple?

guest: it ought to be that simple. immigration is a civil status. you're either eligible for the portable -- all little or deport -- you are either eligible or deportable. it is far too complex for taxpayers. the deportation process is hopelessly complex. the dream act will add more layers of complexity. that has been one of the biggest arguments against it, that it furthers this schizophrenia, the idea that we have created that the u.s. lacks the will to get serious about enforcing the law. there are no measures of any consequence that will prevent a recurrence of more illegal immigration. the bill gives all of these people work authorizations. we have so many people unemployed. it will make them eligible for

student loan assistance. it will be going to community colleges, which are turning americans away because of overcrowding. why is this a priority? there's a sense of growing frustration about the misplaced priorities. what was this election about if it was not about more robust and meaningful immigration enforcement? why is harry reid trying to ram this bill through the lame-duck when it is so far down the list of priorities of the electorate that it is hard to understand? host: welcome to the program. caller: thank you. i have a couple of comments. first of all, i am in my 80's. i have paid social security and my insurance all my life.

i am disabled now. the illegals come in here and they draw social security. they do not pay in. we give them food stamps for grandmas and aunts and uncles and then they get social security. at think it is very unfair to the american people. the republicans have said we will use the lower-paying people -- the world heading for a bad disaster. i resent paying for their health care when i live on $14,000 per year, paying for my home and stuff. this has been going on for years. host: not an uncommon refrain on the program.

guest: uc at 10. -- you see a tin ear on some of the people on the left. there are attacked in arizona employer sanctions bill. when congress continues to extend unemployment benefits, the normal market process by which americans would be relocating in the united states to find jobs is being distorted by the presence of so many illegal immigrants. the so-called dream act fuels' a sense that is growing elements -- amongst the public that people are getting things they're not entitled to. why do want to punish the kids for being brought here illegally? it is not punishing the kids, and not rewarding the parents, or the kids. if your parents do not pay your taxes, they can go to jail or get centered in congress. there are going to be consequences to the children for

the apparent failure to file tax. punishing the kids would be the equivalent of violate -- of prosecuting them for violating immigration law. they can leave the country, go home, do everything in a citizen of that country can do. giving them green cards and the right to petition their parent is an affirmative reward for both the parents and children for having broken the law. people are right to be concerned that, at times when americans are losing jobs, losing housing, benefits cut back, we see people in congress continuing to provide benefits to people who are not entitled to them. host: fair.us.org. -- fairus.org is the website. we have about 35 minutes left. a call from tulsa.

independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot believe some of the things i'm hearing from my government. either you're breaking the law or you are not. these people are being rewarded for breaking the law. when they are talking about separating families -- take them with you. more importantly, here in tulsa, the entry-level jobs, fast food chains for young kids -- fast food chains -- four young kids, learning how to work -- you have people working at mcdonald's and things that are 40 year-olds. we are rewarding them. from i sitting n tulsa -- from sitting here in

tulsa, this policy is racist. i got out to a hospital a few months ago. coming to the emergency room, it was overflowing with illegals. host: racist policy. the caller puts his finger on an important point. frank sharry and others have a created this impression that immigration policy can be bought for political purpose. the only rationale for this is some kind of putative political payoff. we know that the hispanic vote does not really a vote on the immigration issue. we have seen it over and over again. the population is growing so

favors that the skewe democrats. the impression is that democrats are using immigration policy for party-building purposes at the expense of the public interest and what the american people want. that is an incendiary combination. the tragedy is that there are people who are young people who have worked hard, done well in school, or being used as political pawns for partisan purposes. and the idea is to build the allegiance of the hispanic electorate based on this cynical manipulation of public policy issue. we represent the american people. it would not make money off of immigration. -- we do not make money off of immigration. we're just neutral brokers. this bill is not in the public's interest, even though it is in our interest to see young people get educated. it is an interest to try to

ensure that we attract people -- the best and brightest from all over the world will otherwise go to other countries. host: here is a message from twitter. "they are going to the labor market and we have so many unemployed. that is simple-minded. they create jobs." guest: we're talking about people who are relatively low in still going into the market as a result of having work authorization. the bill does not require them to graduate. it will swell the ranks of the labor market. people will have relatively low skills. it will be overcrowding scarce education resources at 90 colleges at a time when americans are not able -- at community colleges at a time when americans are not able to get into these colleges. on top of outsourcing jobs seeing costs go up, if you look

at everything else -- on top of everything else -- you're going to set up fierce competition for community colleges, increased job competition. the democrats were fired in this last election. when you fire an employee, if you let them hang around office, they can do things against the employer's interest. we are the employers, the american people. they're trying to cram through some bills that are clearly not in the american people's interest. shame on them. host: let's take a few calls. fairfax, va., bill, republican. caller: i would like to know about the military side of this. i came across the dream act when they were talking about the dod bill.

i watched c-span a lot. we're talking about them joining the military. they still get the $90,000 for a free education -- do they get that? host: let me go to david as well. what part of the issue do you want to speak to? caller: it is astonishing that republicans are a stent -- accusing the democrats of political manipulation. the republicans have a long history of political manipulation starting with the southern strategy, the support of nader boters -- voters to take votes away from our core, the support of the citizens united case -- from al gore, the supports of the citizens united case. host: hypocritical -- can you

respond? guest: the comprehensive immigration reform, which obama pushed, does nothing to prevent a recurrence of the same problems that got us into this situation. how is that reform? the so-called comprehensive immigration reform is nothing but a massive blanket amnesty bill that would destroy it immigration enforcement and policy for the next 50 years. that is not reform. secondly, it is about partisan advantage. i did not want to sound like a partisan guy. i know i do sometimes. the republican party has some players who are helping create a problem. in the chamber of commerce, there are others who use immigration to control labor costs who have been involved in supporting predatory practices that use immigration to decimate the bargaining leverage of american workers. it is the left, the extreme left, the aclu and others who work in concert with the chamber of commerce on these issues

that torch to the economic opportunity for the american people for the last 20 years. on the question of the g.i. bill -- there is already a provision in the law which allows the secretary of defense to enroll or enlist people here illegally for military services and they can get immigration benefits as a result. arguably, the bill is superfluous along those lines. using immigration policy to staff the military sounds like a lot like the roman empire, babylon -- we could go to the list of civilizations that have come and gone as a result of this kind of strategy. you can get lawful permanent resident status after two years of military service. i am not aware of any provision regarding the $90,000. i would have to go back and consult the bill. in the end, the military -- the obama administration's military

supports this provision because they want to help their recruitment goals. we're seeing a cynical manipulation of immigration policy for special interest purposes. forget about whenever mythological ideas we have about immigration policy. it is about increasing enrollment and charging higher tuition. it is about the military, cheap labor interests, wall street, alan greenspan, who said immigration is needed to drive down wages because american workers were getting paid too much. this is people who -- people wonder why this would be considered in the lame-duck legislation. just look at the players. -- we happy to see people of hundreds of thousands of activists around the country -- have hundreds of thousands of activists from the country pummelling the switchboard of congress, rising against the dream at.

we have major opposition in the senate to stop this. as long as people did not let up the pressure, we can defeat this in this congress. host: cheryl in south carolina talking immigration. caller: excuse me, i am nervous. the congressional budget office announced the dream act would increase revenue by $2.3 billion. have they announced what the cost will be to the american taxpayer? i heard an estimate of $20 billion. guest: the cbo came up with the estimate but said because we were putting the beneficiaries in non-immigrant visa status, kind of like tourist visas, they came up with a series of assumptions in the estimates that showed a net wash. the $2.3 billion benefit is

negligible in an economy of our size. and the estimates are off for a variety of reasons. there is definitely going to be follow-up legislation to try to create other status for people in the non-immigrant status even if they did not complete college. we feel that the cost estimates are wildly understated. after 10 years, imagine when they get green cards. there will be dramatic increases in the use of public benefits. 42% of taxpayers are not paying -- do not have a fighter -- pot -- do not have a positive federal tax liability. there will not be significant taxpayers over -- they will not be significant taxpayers overturned. we believe this will cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

they do not by the way that it covers education costs. host: you can read more about that at thehill.com. it estimates there would cut spending by $1.4 billion, but beyond 2020, the bill would begin to cost money. guest: this goes to the broader question -- what is the purpose of immigration? it is costing us money. we need to rethink the purpose and redefine system by which we

select immigrants so that it makes more sense for the american people and serves our national and domestic priorities. we're not cortisol the immigration debate by passing bills like this -- going to solve the immigration debate are passing bills like this so- called dream act. host: what does it mean if the house passes the bill? guest: and they did not want to face the wrath of their constituents. constitutionally, lame-duck sessions are treacherous. a responsible legislator would not cast of vote in the lame- duck except for truly adjutant -- exigent situations. taxes we're talking about or federal spending, we're not going debate this -- to debate

this. harry reid is a crafty guy who has shown a complete lack of principle at times, including the way he has handled immigration. an awful lot of lousy stuff gets passed in the lame-duck. arguably, lame-duck sessions -- we have so many major decisions made in this country by judicial branches of government that are outside the political process. the lame-duck -- congress is one of the few remaining, politically sensitive realms where the american voters have a say. if they can take it out of the normal sensitivity to the profit us, things can happen -- to the process, things can happen. caller: every year i get laid off. 15 years ago, night shift.

a lot of white guys. now, same factory, all latin americans. people cannot afford their mortgages. these guys can. you can't get a job. . caller: i agree with you 100% on all of these issues. my world this morning, i woke up and they were talking about joe scarborough and winning the class warfare issue. on this channel i see everyone talking about trade issues, which is a lose lose for america. i do not know where i can turn as a voter to find someone that represents me except for the green party.

i have followed their principles for years. i voted for them one time. it looks like it is the only way out. democrats and republicans said across the table and smile at each other -- like where are they going to go? >> there will be -- guest: there will be a tremendous amount of of people in this country over the next 15 years. we are going to phase in electoral politics unlike anything we have ever seen in our lives. it always seemed like there was more at the table to share. multi-party democracies provide opportunities for issues like immigration and environmental issues to get more of a voice. unfortunately we have a dominant two-party system right now. we do have some folks in the house, taking over in january. lamar smith, chairman of the

judiciary committee, working on the immigration issue, correctly analyzing it, in our view, for a long period of time. he is seriously interested in the topic. jeff sessions on the senate side, there will be a very different dynamic on the immigration issue next year. which really raises the broader question of why you would want to legislate without hearings or proper deliberation? put this off until next year. take the opportunity to really analyze what we are doing on immigration issues. this is no way to legislate. i feel very sorry, myself, for the american people that feel of our political system does not represent the interests of the average person. for the caller that called about labor displacement, where there

is opportunity it is certain -- simply written off. elements in the democratic party that have decided that their future electoral advantage lies in young, non-caucasian voters, writing off the interests of other voters. they are continuing out with it this so-called dream back and i think the voters spoke loud and clear. in november where immigration was an issue in a race after race, the arizona bill was incredibly popular. why would nancy pelosi broad assault in the wound by considering legislation of this kind? diametrically opposed to what the american people clearly said that they wanted. host: my guest has been a former congressional staffer, president

of the american immigration reform,, how long has that institution been around? >> since 1979. we were founded by a wide range of people from both parties. we represent the center on this issue and we get attacked from both sides because we are a major advocate for reforms that would minimize the 9/11 threat for sanctions in the 1980's. we have brought major litigation over the years to try to equalize the leverage for american citizens. you know, it is a wonderful organization, if i say so myself. partly because it is relatively unique in american politics. host: how is it funded? guest: we have about 100,000 members. 70% are from -- 70 per% of the

contributions are from the people. we have many major supporters that helped to build the organization, like warren buffett. host: here is a clear message -- -- twitter message -- guest: that is a speech this economic argument. ous economic argument. say someone here with an account -- with a high school degree is costing more than with a sales tax, if they were sent back to their own country, they could take the skills back home and purchased american made products that would help the trade deficit.

look, this entire idea that we will build an economy on low- skilled labor with high skilled education is so 19th century. we have really got to update how we are thinking about how immigration relates to a post- industrial immigration society. to the extent that we need immigration is high value added proprietary knowledge people that can expand production of the economy. we have the labor and the need for jobs fox. we have the talent and the know- how. there is no evidence that the american people are not capable of doing jobs in their own country. having the education and skills that they need that we need to continually reward. the taxpayers already provide a k-12 education for people that bring their children here illegally. we have provided a very

extensive public education. they probably got a better education than it would have in their home country. the patriotic thing would be for those children to take their skills back home and build up the economy is back home. host: champaign, illinois. caller: first-time caller. host: glad to have you. caller: i would like to say that the dream act is not so much an issue of immigration but as of handling the problems we have now. in all aspects other than being born here, participating in the culture, they are american. some of their parents pay taxes even though they do not have to. but they are left in the dust. if they get a degree and they are not legal is not worth anything to anyone.

they are already involved in the economy. guest: echoing my earlier point, that somehow this is a zero sum game. look, if we educate people, even if we do not want to, we are investing in them in a way and we can look at it as an extension of foreign aid. so that when they go back home they put those educational skills to work. helping to build those economies back home. if we accept the proposition, president obama's proposition, that immigration laws will never be enforced in this country, you can make a solid argument that giving people education makes sense. never deporting them. but that is not our position. our position is that the american people has not only the right but the duty and capacity to enforce and we must enforce

those laws or we will no longer be a nation. the dream that is flawed because it does not come up with n.v. -- and then what -- answer. how do you prevent a recurrence of more illegal aliens coming in and taking advantage outside of the law if you send this kind of message we can all understand a young person's desire to do well. it is to be commended. believe me, the moral and ethical issues here are difficult. and i do not want people to think that we do not feel the tension underlying these issues. but ultimately in the end of this is about doing the right thing in along run. it is irresponsible legislating to offer amnesty benefits without giving the american people even a shred of promise that these things will not occur. that is why this bill in the

senate is so cynical. it appears to not be a good- faith proposal. it is a cynical immigration policy for partisan gain. republicans taking on the chin because of hispanic voters? that is playing party politics with america's immigration policy. that is incomprehensible. taking the national debate on who we are in who we will be and turning it into a partisan political football. host: memphis, tennessee, republican. what do you have to say? debt -- caller: i am a radical republican. host: what does that mean? caller: president hayes in 1881 made a deal with southern states to become president. the construction was ended.

here we are, african-americans that have been emancipated and free. but we have no [unintelligible] because of the racism and bigotry that we see. listening to all of this rhetoric, i do not see that they are having a conversation where we can overcome all of this hypocrisy. guest: i am not sure that i understand the caller. but there is an inherent racial tension within our society. no one can doubt that. at the same time, i think, and we think this is fair, we have had a robust immigration debate with tremendous demographic a change over the last 30 years.

more so than any country in the history of western civilization. the american people have been remarkably excepting and tolerant. we are extremely impressed with how willing the american people are to absorb people that come from different countries, cultures, with new ideas. but there is an inherent tension in subterranean ethnic and racial bias amongst people. remember, when immigration was brought down in the 1920's it created the market forces that encourage people that had lived in the south to come to the north in search of jobs. major advances were made in the civil rights movement, during world war ii, i am black and white relations. when you open up the floodgates to massive immigration you

underline market forces and the tension creates incentives for people to come together. even though it is under the nominal idea of creating diversity, what it really does is create social distance. we see a great deal of that now. think about the community most negatively affected by the dream act. the most disadvantaged people that need subsidized student loans, who need public university. it is not like every university is getting open admission. in fact, public universities and community colleges are increasing tuition now. they are actually putting caps on enrollment. so, you are going to have this kind of debate when you refuse to recognize that we live in a era of limits. it is not responsible for legislators to think that we can

spend our way out of every problem. host: let's hear from a few more folks. long island, nick, democratic line. caller: i just want to comment on one thing. all of this bickering about the immigrants, the only problem i have with that is you need to take care of the american people right now. a lot of these people do not spend their money in america, they spend it that at all -- back at home. worry about the americans. i do not think that this is a time that they should even talk about the dream that. >> -- host: jeff, you get the last word. caller: thank you. good morning. this is something that you need to include in your conversation.

what is an american? i am a german descended american. my parents were born here. i am able american. my neighbor, whose parents were born here, he is labeled an african-american. our governments has use policies of discrimination true racial labeling of different subspecies of americans. to say that only if you are a white person you are american -- hispanic american, african american, you were born in another place. the problem is labeling. we need to label americans as americans. guest: he is talking about some broader issues. the only way that we will come here as a people as if we come together under one banner and one label. those subdivisions he was talking about were built up for political purposes.

now, because immigration introduces ethnic change, there is a system around the voting rights act whereby the democratic party views immigration as something that expands its constituency for its own political power base. at the expense potentially of national unity. hispanic american voters that vote republican generally want to be viewed as americans, they are interested in assimilation. there is an institutional desire among some to maintain these differences because of the economic spoils that have been built up around these differences. the framers of the constitution would have said that we come from all over the world to buy into this wonderful experiment in republican democracy where we hold allegiance to our land and sets of ideas. demanding preferences based on race, group rights, this is

antithetical. if they used beneficiaries of the dream that to meet diversity goals, you are just adding one more discriminatory factor that works against other groups in exchange for providing these benefits. host: daniel stein is president of the association for american immigration reform. thank you for your time. one more segment to go in this edition of "washington journal." when we come back we will talk about the budget gaps continuing across the country with our guests, scott pattison. first, more news from c-span radio. >> more on security screening at airports. members of congress are calling on the transportation security administration to release reports that show whether x-ray

machines that screen passengers and baggage meet requirements to limit only low levels of radiation. the call from lawmakers came after the tea s.a. did not respond to repeated requests to review the records showing whether those machines are properly monitored or maintained. ed markey is asking the inspector general to investigate. maxine waters, writing in a privileged resolution, calling on the house to investigate the indefinite suspension of two professional staff members of the ethics committee, one of whom was the lead investigator in the case against her. the resolution is modified on the one offered by nancy pelosi to investigate ethics committee staff firings after the aftermath of tom delay in 2005. using precisely the same language as nancy pelosi's, calling for a bipartisan task

force. the house has two days to take up the resolution. the president's plan to extend tax cuts for all americans is giving stocks a lift. renewing unemployment benefits, granting a one-year reduction in social security taxes, the deal requires congressional approval and is giving investors encouragement. the dow jones industrial average futures are up 43 ahead of the opening bell. >> fourth amendment rights and a legal search and seizure, saturday in c-span radio's landmark supreme court cases. >> there was no evidence of any magistrate asked for a search warrant. there was no record of a search warrant. >> listen to the argument un c- span radio.

you are watching c-span. bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is our live call-in program about the news of the day, "washington journal." during the week, watched the u.s. house and our continuing coverage of the congressional transition. every week night, congressional hearings and policy forums. on the weekends you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org and you can search for all of it on our c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: scott pattison is here, executive director of state budget offices. on the table is the release of

the conditions financially. how are they doing? guest: the good part is that we are starting to see growth. you would expect that. we are seeing improvement in tax collection as the economy slowly improves. the problem at the state level is that while we are seeing growth after a few years of significant declines, we are not back to anywhere near where we were before the recession. the big thing looming over the states is that you have billions of dollars in stimulus funds. but when it ends there were not enough tax breaks coming in to make up for the loss. >> are there parts of the country that do better than others? guest: there are. states that are more commodity and energy dependent tend to be doing better. nebraska, wyoming, montana,

tended to be doing well. unfortunately those are states with smaller populations. states on the coast have had tough times. host: we read so much about budget gaps within the states, most states actually balance their budget every year? guest: we can not print money. host: 11 states reported budget gaps. 23 states afforded $41 billion. 17 states reported $41 billion for next year as well. guest: those are significant figures because normally we do not tend to have budget gaps. you know it is a bad time when we have these looming expenditures coming in terms of health care, k-12 education. host: phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our

guest, scott pattison. tell us about your particular part of the country, how things are doing, how the governor and legislature is doing. separate lines for democrats, republicans, and independence for scott pattison. nasbo.org is the organization's web site. what is the best news coming from this report? guest: there is good news, which is that we are growing. we had two years in a row of unprecedented decline. that was significant. but now we are seeing growth. we are forecasting growth for 2011 and 2012. we have good news coming down the pike. the bad news is that is not enough to make up for the loss of stimulus funds ended is now back to where we were before

this significant recession. host: what kind of cuts are the states using to manage? guest: you may have to pay a higher fee to get into a state park, and there are significant cuts in states like arizona where they have made significant changes in covering transplants. you run the gamut from annoying to extremely painful difficult choices. coast all -- host: the first call for our guest this morning from st. lucie, florida. caller: i think that the whole thing is one big conspiracy by the rich people in this country that have way too much money. they are pulling the strings and our congress people are following what they are told to do. i do not know what we should do. i would like to be told.

no one seems to know what to do. guest: what are the most recent headlines in terms of the state budget? caller: i think that they are all broke. everybody is broke. they are letting people in from other countries to take everything from us. host: simply put, florida is broke. guest: it is simple math. what i mean by that is that but states have to deal with is they have a certain amount of money coming from tax collection and a certain amount of desires, once, and needs that need to be covered by expenses. states have to balance their own budget. what we're looking at, particularly base, we are used to, expenses are going up like health care prices and things like that. there is going to have to be some very tough political choices.

the other thing that is really important, officials must let citizens know what their priorities are. we cannot have it all. some very tough choices are going have to be made. guest: can you speak to florida -- host: can you speak to florida and their condition? guest: similar to california and nevada, they have had some difficult fiscal times and they are going to have to make some tough decisions. they have new leadership coming in with the governor, who is going to make some proposals on how to deal with that situation. host: panama city, florida. good morning. hello? caller: [unintelligible]

ida? host: turned down the sound of your television. caller: can you hear me now? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i am here from panama city, florida. my comment, you know, is that we have taken our jobs, like our computer jobs, sending them to canada because of the taxes we implemented on business. why can we not try to open more factories in the united states again? we eliminated all of the industry from the united states. and then we complained that we did not have jobs for people. that is what we need to do. the commerce right now is based on tourism. with the oil spill, that about killed little bit of tourism that we had.

but if we had more technical things, like china and japan, you know why they are doing this? they're making things that people want. we are not making anything. then we complain that we have no jobs here and no one wants to take their vegetables and fruits, something that we could maybe sell to make business, we are not doing business. the united states needs to start producing. host: more of an economic comment. can you turn that into a fiscal point? guest: it shows where we are right now. people reading about other countries in the world and they become concerned, but we do have a lot going on for us in the united states. what you need to see here are investments.

states, for example, only have so much money and they will have to make tough choices. we are going to see some budget cuts. i think that many state officials are going to step back and say -- where can we invest to improve our state's economy? it might be in economic development programs, but frankly because you have to make those investments, you will have less money for other things. citizens will have to let their priorities be known. host: an interesting story coming out of new jersey with that relatively new governor, they are on the line. caller: it is interesting that you bring up my governor. we are pretty excited about what he is doing. one of the biggest problems in our state, which he has identified, our teacher

pensions and health-care benefits that go on buying and for item. also, state employees with outrageous pensions and benefits that go on forever. also, double dipping and triple the thing in our state with multiple different tensions moving from one place to another. my question is -- is this, and in other states? or in particular is a more common in my state of new jersey? thank you, i will wait to listen for your answer. >> a very -- guest: a very good question. benefits from state to state really very and it has to do with a combination appears some states providing more benefits with less salaries, but the bottom line right now, fortunately or unfortunately, is

that there are going to have to be some changes. we are not on a sustainable path for a lot of these benefits long-term. you are going to see more and more reform. over 20 states have already reformed their pension system in dramatic ways. the simple mathematics are that over the very long term, they are going to have to have these changes made in this mix of salary and benefits. host: what about health care? " that in this equation. how much funding our state's putting out these days on the health care issue? as well as the new federal law. guest: a great question. as we know, health care has created huge costs in as a result, state funds for health care have had to go up. because we have to balance the budget, we have had a situation

where every dollar goes for health care and is a dollar that cannot go for something else. you can argue that the policy problem that we have is that in a limited resource environment where we do not have as much money, the new health care legislation, the bottom line is that from a mathematical standpoint there is uncertainty as to how much it will cost states. i will say that it is an interesting statistic from just a few years ago of total state spending. for medicated became equal to the percentage and i would predict that the amount that states spend on health care will go higher at some point. host: let's hear from bill.

hello, you are on the democrat line. caller: i was calling about what president obama did. i am a democrat. i do not know what i will do now. host of what he did in what area? caller: failing in all of his promises. host: what is your situation with education in the illinois? caller: i am for him, i am a democrat. i do not care for either party.

i am to the point of being independent. host: go ahead, steve. steve, are you there? but the thing? -- what do you think? caller: the problem is the vast amount of people out there that do not pickaxes. the government knows nothing about them. the ones that are legal, the government knows about. why not simply charge a surcharge to people? we put a card in the atm to get money out. we buy things. why not simply enter the number,

get the number, the government knows you are here. host: does immigration play into this? guest: it goes both ways at the state revenue level. there are certain instances where there is a cost to the state, but there are other instances where immigration is a benefit. states that got tough on immigration and the sales tax has gone down. they were not able to prove a direct link, but it does raise questions as to the benefits of the cost of immigration in the state and i know that state officials look closely at that. that is a tough issue in so many ways for state officials because it is also a federal issue. host: one u.s. rests -- -- one of our viewers asks --

guest: that is a good point. of course, a lot of funding that states received is from the federal government. states receive a lot of grants from law enforcement and homeland security and so many areas. certainly from medicaid and health care. there is an intertwining with states and federal government. there are concerns that the state level that the federal government has become more and more comfortable in putting specific mandates on those funds. sometimes the amount that we have available to cover the additional costs is not necessarily what is available. this is something that over time needs to be addressed more with an understanding that there will be requirements on the states with funding and resources. we are so limited we do not have

the tools that the federal government as to print money. >> roughly 20 minutes left in this segment. daytona beach, john, independent. what is your situation? caller: i wanted to make the comments that i hope america understands there is no big difference between republicans and democrats. they are the same sides of the same coin. 14 americans have died of terrorism since 9/11. i hope that america sooner or later as the class war that everyone thinks that will have. host: bruce, you are on the air.

caller: discuss the connection between states collecting revenue from taxes -- for instance, discuss the connection between jobs in the state collecting revenues in the form of taxes. going into the fact that when people do have jobs, they buy things. guest: there is no question that not only do the people in the states with jobs pay income taxes, so unemployment is definitely a double-that the state level if you decline in sales tax and income tax. and it is expensive to go up because health care and social services are needed. host: this from "the new york

times." "states -- are releasing guest: well, it certainly is an issue. at the state level you have that. however, i must say that states are, as well as other levels of

government, they are not corporations. this is not like a brother that will disappear and be absorbed. our view from the state level is that it is exceptionally unlikely that you will see a state defaults. will you see pain as a result of states having to deal with tough financial situations? yes, but i have no concerns the state debt will be defaulted upon. again, there will be pain in the financial management of the situation, but not to the extent that bonds are at risk. will there be local entities that the fault? i think they will be the exception that proves the rule. host: what additional pain are you looking at with the states? guest: the bottom line is that there are other things coming down the pike. so, the pain is to leave

resources for more things. or least the desire for more things. we will have to be touchy about how money is spent. i can see governments focusing more on what we see as the core. if government were a person with a decline in income growth, that would likely focus on paying the mortgage without a nice vacation. that is what states are doing. they will not be able to funds the arts festival. host: can you speak to the buildings in the equation? guest: it could go to education, infrastructure. there is only so much coming in. you might see tax increases, but you will see more creative ways of dealing with things. states will be open to leasing

entities that they own. having a private group build a bridge, it may not be things that people like but it might be the only way that we can get certain things. host: what impact has the stimulus money had? guest: i will not get into the policy debate on the economy, but the bottom line is that from a mathematical standpoint it really helps. for every $1 in stimulus funds there was another dollar the states did not have to cut from a program or raise in taxes. you can get into all kinds of debates about the impact, but from a mathematical standpoint. host: connie, birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. how're you?

host: doing fine. how are you? caller: fine. we can get into debates about how this country was started. started for everyone. everyone in america comes from somewhere. there are people on the table than one to complain -- and one to complain about how we are spending money to build things. the thing is, we need to come together as a country like we used to be. arguing over a simple things, if congress would get together and realize that they were there because the bus, not little groups, the rich or the port, they are there for all americans. and they need to remember that. we need to pull together to say that we have old people, young people, of rich people and for

people. you are there to represent all of us. we will have to come up with something, no matter the issues that we deal with, getting together as a country and dealing with these issues to come up with a budget that we can afford and just do it. the greed is killing us. host: the bottom -- guest of the bottom line is that we are going to grow, which is a good thing. over the past decades, the caller is certainly getting at the fact that we will have certain resources and as a result, decisions will be tougher as to where we spend the money. what is exciting for me is that, as the caller has talked about, we have always been able to be successful. it is a real opportunity for citizens to say that we have to prioritize and here are our

priorities. we are giving up certain things but we want to invest and spend in other areas. host: wilmington, north carolina. caller: i would like to comment on what president obama had to say last night. can you hear me? i want to comment on what president obama had to say last night about tax breaks. for another two years, that will help us tremendously. if we would work on the deficit, that would help to get unemployment back in line as far as getting independence and on to vendors back to work, helping people with jobs. -- independents and entrepreneurs back to work, helping people with jobs. host: part of the rub was that

there might be tax breaks but $900 billion was the price tag of the federal debt. your thoughts? caller: by doing this people spend more money in sight of the united states as far as promoting jobs and we will have more money coming in. host: what is the connection? guest: instead of the on the one hand, on the other hand, we hope that at the state level there are several policies that are positive towards the economy. which is good for us. seeing improvement in employment, more people spending things with sales taxes coming in, certainly it is better for us. over the long term there are very tight situations that the deficit federal level the continue to go up.

certainly in programs where there is federal money that will be impacted, you can debate whether that is good or bad but i think that you will see a decline in the growth over the long term. host: we are still reading stories about money that has not been spent in the states. can you take us through the life cycle of this money? when the money runs out, what is the forecast? guest: most of it has been spent, states have done that. there is still some to be spent. which is good, because many fauves at the time that it was passed did not think that the downturn will last as long as it has.

the fact that there is a bit left going into next year, 2011, is a good thing. but when it is over, it is over. state tax revenue is not sufficient to make up for that loss. we will have to look at a budget or tax increase at the state level. caller: i would like to talk about a common thread, the tax breaks of the rich, immigration , which is the chamber of commerce. the chamber of country clubs. they are all doing very well and getting better every day. my boss is on vacation in

europe. i just took a pay cut, he just got a tax break. he and other working people get less and less. i hope that the people of both parties can get together and say -- enough already. it is economic justice. we need more equity. host: scott pattison? guest: it brings up what you are seeing right now regarding the unemployed. even state employees have had furloughs. you are seeing this spread out.

what we need to install -- what we need to see is a furlough in the economy. people are facing a difficult situation as a result. host: bernadette, republican, good morning. caller: in terms of medicare and medicaid [unintelligible] people that never worked or paid into the system [unintelligible] host: that was hard to hear. did you catch that?

guest: not all of it. host of talking about benefits that are seen later on. guest: first, obviously there are people for whom we have a social safety net. it does speak to the fact that the importance of activities that you are seeing that the federal level is trying to audit. there are quite a few protections in the recovery act to make sure that we do not have waste and fraud. it is important to have auditors looking at where the money is going to make sure that we do not have released and fraud. which is important for all of the citizens. wanting to feel comfortable that the money is going for a good purpose and not a bad purpose. host: some of the things that states have had to do and might

still have to do in that area? guest: is very interesting. in almost every other downturn, states have been able to avoid cuts the k-12. in this case it has not been universal. their work cut said the state level that shows how bad the situation is. significant cuts to some state university systems. they have been able to raise tuition to make up for that. in the education area it has been difficult. the recovery act as said provisions that required states not to go below a certain level. so, k-12 has been a favored area of state government but it has still taking hits in some states. host: " -- june, democratic line. hello. caller: i recently returned from

arizona. i cannot see how states and cities will survive unless they start to cut pensions. the only way that they can do this is apparently so that local government or state government can cut the budget. giving you an example, this one woman's base pay when she was working was 156,000. her pension was 217,000. apparently there is an increase -- what was the electronic thing that was bubbling? they put all of these things in? on the same token they said it could not be cut without a downturn. sari, the rest of the united states people are suffering from downsizing. i do not see why they do not

implement something that the federal level that would enable the states and local governments to declare bankruptcy if their pension is becoming -- what did you say? overpowered? caller: liability is high. it does not mean that people will not get their checks, but it does mean that over the long term they will not have the liability. certainly there are anecdotes of extreme cases. most of the time that is not the case, which is good to know. but across the country we have to look at the pension liability issue overtime. the bad part is that there has been a spotlight on it. reporting standards are fairly straight. we know the liability that will exchange -- improve over time. we are talking about this and we are going to solve this problem.

but the final point is that often there are constitutional or statutory provisions. in most cases, you cannot do a lot for those that are already employed. but you can avoid future pensions. states like utah, 20 states have taken steps to start to deal with this. frankly is not just in every state for a sustainable path that we have to do something. host: looking at the governorships around the country, the vast majority are republican. is there a common thread to their approach? guest: i have found over the years that governors tend to be less polarized in politics. they have a state that must be managed. what is interesting is that when you think about it, they are

managing an enterprise that is bigger than fortune 500. you tend to be more into a management style just to get the job & as a situation, regardless of party ideology. with the governors coming in they are rolling up their seat -- their sleeves and saying -- ok, we have to solve the problems. host: you released a state-by- state breakdown? guest: i encourage people to look at that if they want to. we do have a shortfall to years, but not necessarily deficit figures because of the shortfall being what they project in the lack of funds. remember, they have to balance the budget. in the end they do not have an out right deficit. host: indianapolis, good morning. caller: quickly, first of all the best answer for our economic

problems is to have federal level monetary reforms. we need to stop paying interests to private and central banks. people need to take that as a bottle. guest: it is interesting, north dakota has a bank but there are factors in that area that have made them economically successful. most of them being there western oilfields and things like that that have been profitable. they have done fairly well during that recession. it is very hard to determine whether it is the bank itself that makes the big difference or if it is other economic factors. host: pa., last call. another interesting state with a budget situation. republican line, good morning.

caller: i have a couple of comments. i know that in pennsylvania we are having a real problem with bridges and roads. but our governor will give money here for $40,000 -- $40 million to revamp this theater. i think that that $40 million could have gone to a better cause in the streets and sewers, whenever infrastructure we needed done. i was just wondering what your comment would be on how we spend our money sometimes. host: final thoughts? guest: i do not know the details. it might be that there was an analysis that there was economic development as part of refurbishing that theater that could be beneficial.

but it gets at the bottom line, elected officials, they want to make these tough decisions knowing that they are doing what the citizens really what the most. i think that citizens have to be loud and clear about their priorities with the understanding that you cannot have it all. $1 coming in for a particular purpose, we have to do some tough choices. we have to really rethink where money is going. host: again, a the web'sn site isthe website nasbo.org. scott pattison, thank you so much for your time. we appreciate your calls as well. enjoy the rest of the day. we will see you back here tomorrow for "washington journal."