. then andrew biggs examines pension programs. and later, brenda roberts of the working poor family's project, talked-about the impact of the economy on low-income working families. "washington journal" is next. host: it's a new year with the new congress. the opening day of the 112 congress begins wednesday. the obama administration will be working with the gop-led house and the senate majority. they will vote on the new rules package, which includes cut-as- you-go provisions. on the senate side, two democratic senators are pushing filibuster reform. they plan to bring it up for debate, including a number of changes to the senate rules. what our coverage of both

bodies -- what our coverage -- watch our coverage of both bodies. we began this morning with your thoughts on who to watch in that 112 congress did you can start calling in now. we will get your phone calls -- 112th congress. you can start calling in now. we will get to your phone calls in just a moment. michael steele, gentry collins -- gentry collins said he will not be running to replace michael steele. we will be covering the debate of the rnc candidates, including michael steele, today on c-span at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. that will be at the national press club. tune in for live coverage. who to watch in the 112th congress congress. the gop newcomers are setting out to overcome obama victories.

the vote, which republican leaders would occur before the president's state of the union address, is intended both to appeal to the tea party influence and to emphasize the muscle of the new party in power -- in power. it could produce an unintended consequence, a chance for democrats to try their case in support of the health care overhaul before the american public. democrats, who, in many cases looked on the lot as a rabid beast best avoided in the fall elections, are reversing course, preparing for court needed, all- out effort to preserve and defend it. under the law, consumers are already receiving tangible benefits that republicans would take away. also on the health care law, "the wall street journal," congress target spending. the health care repeal is not expected to go anywhere in the senate. it will only save about $25 million from the federal budget.

that is "the wall street journal" this morning on the republican efforts to repeal the health care law. here is "usa today" there headlines. it shows a couple of new members of congress -- a rising tide lifts all boats. you can see senator joe manchin, in coming from west virginia. he is replacing the late robert byrd. manchin chart his own course. he recently bought his party -- bucked his party. except that is senator elect rand paul of kentucky. -- next to that a senator-elect rand paul of kentucky. he has been set up as a conservative a standard bearer -- conservative standard-bearer. kristi noem will happen hand in

updating the no time left behind education law. -- no child left behind education law. you have senator-elect marco rubio, a republican from florida. he was named by real clear politics as the top, rising star in the new congress. also, representative-elect alan nunnelee. those are some of the new members of the new congress. "usa today" says they will be looking to make their mark. we want to hear from all of you. who should we be watching? richard, independent caller, you are first. caller: i think that rand paul

will try to get their trade. -- fair trade. cannot the -- we cannot compete with somebody making $1 per hour. host: what do you want rand paul to do about that? caller: i want him to get a fair trade deal where they have to import as much as we export. we cannot compete with somebody making a dollar per hour. host: the issue of trade is likely to come up broadway in the new congress. this is "usa today" in this new issue. republicans in the obama administration will have won bipartisan deal poised to move quickly. a free-trade agreement with south korea. the agreement would boost u.s. exports by $11 billion annually. the deal has support from many republicans, such as representative dave camp, and some democrats, including

representative sander levin. also likely to come up at the beginning of the 112th course is no child left behind legislation. all students are supposed to be proficient in math and reading. this target is not realistic. democrats and republicans on the education committee signed a letter agreeing to take a bipartisan approach to updating the law. that was before an election in which some republicans such as senator-elect rand paul said they favored abolishing the u.s. department of education. charles, democratic line, your thoughts. who will you be watching in the 112th congress? caller: i guess i will be watching all of them to see if they can work together. where are the jobs? host: charles? i think we lost him.

little rock, ark. -- bill, also a democrat. you are next. who will you be watching? caller: i will probably be watching the tea partyers. i am a democrat since bush was elected. i have a job. i have health insurance. i cannot believe that people voted for who they voted for. i have a job and health insurance. i will be watching those poor saps that do not have jobs, watching everything get dismantled, and keep the war going. host: "tea party plans to flex its muscles. as lawmakers settle in, some will get a visit before the boxes are unpacked and the phones start ringing. we wanted to know that we know

our folks help them get elected and we are there for them. they will send activists to visit lawmakers' offices hours after the swearing-in the wednesday of the one -- 112th congress. they will monitor the new class and fire up activists before key votes. we mentioned education. from "usa today," two pieces. arne duncan rights in the "washington post," -- writes in the "washington post," "most people dislike the no child left behind mandate. providing more flexibility to schools, districts, and states,

while also holding them accountable, is the goal of many people in both parties." that is why many people support the work of 44 states to replace multiple choice bubble tests with new tests that help inform and improve instruction but accurately measuring what children know -- by accurately measuring what children know. jeb bush, the governor of florida, in the wall street journal, "according to the u.s. census, a high-school dropout earns around $19,000 per year on average. a high-school diploma raises that average to $26,600. -- $28,600. a college degree could raise your earning potential to $51,000.500. -- $51,500.

in 1998, nearly half of florida's fourth graders were functionally illiterate. today, 72% of them can read. they are reading better than other students in 31 other states." could you plan to keep an eye on? could you think might be a rising star? politico says, "top again stars of 2010 -- top breakout stars of 2010." they have marco rubio and rand paul. i am having a little trouble with my i pad right -- ipad right now. many of you might have seen darrell issa guest today -- yesterday. politico has a story on issa.

the house oversight of government reform panel is planning to investigate how regulation impact of grecian, the role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the regulation -- of regulation in that job creation -- the house oversight of government reform panel is planning to investigate how regulation impacts job creation and the role of fannie mae and freddie mac. caller: i will be watching miss buck -- ms. bachmann. i wanted tea party to know that they should take their checkbooks. it is a couple of hundred dollars if you leave your car in the wrong place. i wish the 112th congress luck. host: what are your expectations?

caller: i ame. i want to see how they maneuver to save money. we will be interested. we will be watching. host: what about the new rules that republicans will propose in the house? cut-as-you-go. caller: i do not know of it is very much money or how they are going to do it, but it will be interesting to see how that lines up with the constitution. i understand a plan to read the constitution every day. host: they plan to read the full constitution january 6. will you be watching? what do you think about that idea? caller: i think it is a good idea. drop the history of our country, we have not followed -- throughout the history of our country, we have not followed that thing well. host: we will have our coverage of that reading on january 6 here on c-span.

john, district heights, md.. caller: at the morning. -- good morning. republicans will find that most of this mess was done by their own party. they will only come out when the sun is shining. it is going to be a joke to watch the freshmen and see what happens to them and how they respond to their constituents back home. to me, the whole thing is just a joke. it is going to be a good thing to watch for the next two years. i just watched the whole ball game. it is going to be a fun thing to watch. host: thank you. susan, an independent. good morning. caller: i will be watching representative issa. i want to find out from our new house of representatives -- i need them to get our country in order when it comes to taxes.

the senate -- the house -- the federal employees that have all of the back taxes that are not paid for that are still out there for 2007. witho ur -- with our old house and our old senate, they would always make a statement, it is only 1% or only 0.5%. let's add those all up. let's take the credit cards away from all of the helpers we have at the house. they should only be given to certain people in the house of representatives and the senators. it should not be carte blanche with our taxpayer money. host: that was susan, an independent in dallas. let's go to david, also an independent, in baltimore. good morning.

caller: i am not really sure what the tea party is about. i do not know what these freshmen -- i guess rand paul is the most well-known of the tea party candidates. i will be watching to see what they do. host: when you think of tea party, what members come to mind? caller: that is that thing. i cannot think of anybody offhand. for some reason, my guess would be they would be from the midwest or the south, but i cannot think of anybody off hand. rand paul. host: all right. one of the members of the tea party movement, michele bachmann, a republican, started the tea party caucus on capitol hill duty is part of -- was part startedce the nation --

the tea party caucus on capitol hill. she was part of "face the nation." >> will you vote to raise the debt ceiling? >> i will wait to see what direction the republicans want to take. >> i voted against the tax-cut bill because it blowhole in the budget -- blew a hole in the budget. republicans will not allow the full faith of the american people to go down the tubes. this is their game to run. this is an adults' game. >> you risk having the government come to a standstill. >> i do understand what happens. raising the debt ceiling is absolutely irresponsible. we have been spending money for so long that we do not have it. tax revenue comes from people

who are working, people who are profitable, not from raising tax rates. >> michele bachmann? >> at this point, i am not in favor of raising the debt ceiling. i am urging people to sign this to urge members of congress not to raise the debt ceiling. congress has had a party for the last two years. they are not -- now standing back, taunting us, how are you going to solve the big spending crisis? >> so you're willing -- >> is not good for anyone to shut the government down -- it is not good for anyone to shut the government down. that is why it is important for democrats to be part of figuring out how to stop this. host: who are you going to watching the 112th congress? you are on the air. caller: ok, who am i going to watch?

i am going to watch all of congress. i am concerned with what they're talking about with social security. social security was a policy that was established years ago, in which the employee and employer paid a premium. it is not what all of congress is trying to say -- that they have paid for it. actually, for years, there was a tremendous amount of money in that fund, whcih -- which party,smaen, whichever raided that fund. a senator from the state of new york created a trust fund for the social security fund which has some iou's in it. i recommend that congress, who raided the public, the people's

pension plan, find a way to put the money back, even if they have to raise their own pension plan -- raid their own pension plan. host: we are going to talk about social security around 8:30 a.m. if you raise the age, what is the impact? mark? caller: i am interested in watching progress. i have served overseas as part of our military forces, the united states navy, the united states national guard -- the pennsylvania national guard, actually. i am currently serving with the army reserve. i am just curious as to what their plans really are. i do not see anyone doing anything other than plying for a stalemate.

i am not against president obama. i am not against republicans. i am not against the democrats. i am independent. here is what is happening -- we are setting ourselves up for a serious conflict of interest that will stall this country. host: all right. caller: i feel it coming. i understand that it is coming. we're going to talk about reading the constitution of the united states before we sign a bill or before we put a bill. ok. did we forget how to read the constitution of the united states when we elected these people? the american people need to come back to the thinking that our constitution is our set of laws. we need to come back to the idea that these things should have always been involved. if the person who was representing new has not read the constitution, that person should not -- who is

representing you has not read the constitution, that person should not be representing you. are you following me? before anyone gets arrogant enough to start playing hardball with the u.s. constitution, maybe they ought to read it and find out that the only thing required by the u.s. constitution is stated plainly and clearly. this is what i believe. you provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. that is it. everything after that is simply the means by which we make a loss that help us provide that. host: all right, mark, we'll leave it there. we will continue to talk about who you are going to be watching in the 112th congress. patrick o'connor is joining us to talk about the rnc debate happening today at 1:00 p.m.

eastern at the national press club. we will be covering it here on c-span. let's begin with the news that came out last night at gentry collins e-mail id around to the rnc members -- e-mailed around to the rnc members that he is dropping out. why? guest: it looks like he was not getting enough support. he resigned a couple of months ago. he laid out a memo defining the complaints against michael steele and his reasons that collins believed he had mismanaged the committee. collins told the politico that he was dropping a because he was not getting enough support from the voting members, of which he is not one. host: who is in the lead? guest: right now it is reince priebus. he has the most public supporters, trailed by chairman steele.

over the weekend, some of his previous detractors have come out with memos complaining that he is too closely aligned with the current rnc chairman, mr. steele, who has weathered a barrage of criticism in the weeks since the november midterms. whether or not that is enough to knock him off his black as the front-runner, remains in question -- off his block as the front-runner remains in question. host: where does that put michael steele? caller: it looks like michael steele will have a really hard time returning as chairman. politico did a canvas of the members and 88 have said they will not vote for the chairman. that would more or less in him. he has between 15 and 20 public commitments right now. there are enough people

coalescing around anybody but him. it looks like he will have a really hard time winning in the indy. -- end. host: who votes on this and when will that take place? caller: the debate takes place on a fairly large stage, but the voting membership is just 168 people, mostly party brass throughout the country, even some of the u.s. territories. it is a small group of people. they know each other well. there are a lot of internal rivalries going on. folks who do not pay close attention to the rnc would have no idea about that. there is a big public debate, but really, it comes down to 160 people who know each other pretty well. host: how important is today's debate to the current chairman, michael steele, and those who want to unseat him? guest: it is very important for

michael steele. he has maintained a low profile since the election. this is an opportunity to face his detractors had on -- head-on and answer some questions that have been raised about his tenure as chairman. it is important for all the candidates. the race seems to be wide-open. if priebus were to slip, you would be trying to figure out who could win. it is really important for michael steele because he can face his detractors. it is also important for everybody else in the race. host: you say that it is wide open. who else is a contender? guest: maria cino is a former bush administration official who spent some time in the rnc. ann wagner is a former chairman

of the missouri republican party and was an ambassador to luxembourg under george w. bush. host: she was also our "newsmakers" guest this past weekend. if people are interested in getting an idea of who she is, they can go to our web site c- span.org -- website, c-span.org. sorry i interrupted you. guest: it would be wide open, no obvious choice. gentry collins seems to have said that members want a fellow voting member. it seems like that would exclude cino because she is not. wagner, anuzis, and priebus are all running very viable campaign. chairman steele -- i guess anything could happen, but it

does seem like popular sentiment is against him returning as chairman. host: rnc sees deep red for 2012 budget. what will you be watching for in the debate? guest: i want to see how he answers questions about the money that was spent, possibly in the wrong places. we do not know the candidates a very well. i have never seen priebus in an open forum. he was not at the one that was held earlier. i am curious to see how he holds against some of the questions that have been raised about him in the last couple of days, whether he is too tied to michael steele and whether anointing him to chairman would be the departure that the committee needs. "the: patrick o'connor from wall street journal," thank you.

tipton, georgia, the republican line. who will you be watching? caller: i will be watching congressman linder -- wiener. he was on one of the cbs shows which is very friendly to liberal democrats. he has begun blaming the incoming republican house for being at fault for the economic crisis or mess that we are in. i am sure that he realizes that the democrats have had absolute control of the government, the white house, the senate, the entire congress for the past two years. however, as he has complained for the past two years, the mess is the fault of conservatives or republicans and he has begun to blame them for

what has not yet happened. i want to see if he is willing to compromise and give in on some of the free will, willy- nilly spending that he has been so closely associated with. host: all right. gary, an independent from new york. your thoughts. we are listening. caller: i would like to get anthony wiener on. i am a veteran. i would like to see social security -- i want them to take care of social security so we can survive better. host: a couple of e-mails. "it will be interesting to watch how little gets done if the republicans plan on attacking the administration for the self- serving ambitions of the party rather than the country's needs.

we also have to watch darrell issa make mccarthy-type hearings." a democrat on the line. go ahead. who would you be watching? caller: michele bachmann, rand paul. i actually think that the grown- ups in congress are going to prevail. those who supported the tea party and have these dreams of, you know, government said downs and repealing of -- setdowns and repealing of laws and killing the department of education -- i think those people are going to be disappointed. the other thing i want to say is this nonsense about reading the constitution -- i do not know with these people really understand that the laws in this country are not just the

constitution. we have 200 years of jurisprudence. for example, social security -- social security was challenged in multiple court cases. it was upheld as constitutional. if they want to read the constitution and pretend that that is the limit of the laws in this country, that is fine, but people ought to be aware there is more to our law than just the constitution. providing for the welfare of this country means a lot of things. congress has broad latitude in doing that. i think people just need to stop with all the fantasy and let the adults do the work in congress and get things done for the american people. host: another e-mail -- steve in kentucky, a democrat, "i think we will have to watch them all. nothing will get done. who can you work with when you

oppose everything the president has signed into law?" south bend, indiana, good morning. caller: could morning. the person i am watching is going to be nancy pelosi. for the past two years, her town like behavior has made congress look like a romper room. people overseas see this. they see the way nancy pelosi acts with her na-na-na-na-na attitude. it does not look good for our for in standing pitching needs to grow up. congress needs to grow up. she needs to get out of office. that is what i am waiting for, for her to step down. she has made congress, washington, our administration look like "romper room."

she has to go. host: what you think of the incoming speaker of the house, john boehner? caller: my expectation is for him to do exactly what the american people said -- cut the budget, quit these bailouts, get rid of the health care. and this carbon tax -- by know, -- by now, everybody with a brain knows that global warming was a fake and fraud. the scientists lied. al gore lied. i want it repealed and gone. we need jobs. if you go on to the web sites -- websites, the democratic chairman is saying that obama 0 neglected -- obama neglected

jobs. i need john boehner to look at the black panther party. the republicans have always been blamed for disenfranchising blacks, keeping blacks away from voting, which is an all right -- outright lie. we saw, on display, the black panthers intimidating people and eric holder has done nothing. host: we will leave it there. "goehner -- boehner to take helm with show of austerity. nancy pelosi brought camera crews and dignitaries into her childhood baltimore neighborhood where a street was being renamed in her honor. john boehner is bringing his 11 siblings from working-class ohio to washington for private reunion. pelosi was feted.

austerity is the theme of john bamir's ascendancy to the house speaker -- john boehner's ascendancy to the house speaker this week." after a bipartisan prayer service at st. peter's catholic church, john boehner will recite the oath and take the gamble from closely with the attendant, -- pelosi with the attendant pomp and no more. then he will deliver his maiden speech to the newhouse -- new house. rodney, a democrat from missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on the 112th congress? who will you be watching? caller: i will be watching my

president. he will be the main action figure and center stage this entire deal. i think congress will also be important to keep an eye on. the main thing is that our president -- my president continues flexibility and continues sensitivity to the most important thing there is a and that is the american people -- there is and that is the american people. i think we've gotten a bit off track. people are not following what the working class are most concerned with. the president has demonstrated flexibility and he has also shown, under adverse conditions, that he can actually compromise. thee's been things along way that, maybe, he could have

acted differently on. e didn't build this road, but it is important that he beat us in the right direction -- lead us in the right direction. host: the "washington post," "a gop plan reveals misplaced priorities." "the pay-as-you-go rules normally require programs or initiatives be covered with cuts to other programs or new revenue. in the gop concept, pay-as-you- go applies only to spending programs. when it comes to tax cuts, it is all go, no pay. not only our tax cuts exempted from the concept, but the only way to pay for spending

increases is with spending cuts elsewhere. of course, if you wanted to expand the loopholes, no problem. no need to pay for that. having made clear that no tax cuts need to be paid for, the rules then take the extra step of specifying which deficit- busting tax cuts they have been mined. -- in mind." "tax cuts for the wealthiest are fully protected. the earned income tau tax credit -- the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit would have to be paid for with spending cuts. this is about as upside-down as set of priorities as can be imagined." @ the "washington post -- that

is the "washington post." good morning. caller: i will be watching pretty much all of congress. i think they should all take half a cut in pay and pay for 2/3 of their medical benefits. when they are done with their turn, they do not get retirement plans. i think that would be a major change. i think we should have a flat tax. host: all right. let's hear from a republican. tony in scottsdale, arizona. caller: good morning. there has been a lot of partisan rhetoric. as a republican who is becoming more independent all the time, i want to extend an olive branch to democrats. it is evident that both republicans and democrats have spent way too much money that

our country just does not have. so, whether you believe in the new congress that has come in or you do not, it is evident that we have to find a way to cut our spending and trim our budget, find a way to balance the spending that we have. we have spent a lot of money that we do not have. most important, we have to find a way to bring jobs back to this country, ok? we cannot go competing in other countries that are paying their citizens $1 per hour. we have to bring jobs back to this country. we have to trim our spending. we have to get our house in order. republican, democrat, independent -- we have to make it happen. i will be watching marco rubio, rand paul, john boehner, to see if they really do uphold the election that has just occurred. host: all right. a couple of issues that we

talked about earlier. "usa today" talks about where there might be bipartisan agreement. we talked about education reform as well as a trade agreement with south korea. there is some agreement on changing the tax code in the next congress. "the real problem is an overly complex tax code that carves out over $1 trillion per year and includes loopholes for corporations. the president of the nonprofit committee for responsible federal budget says that fixing the tax code might lower tax rates for everyone." "many incoming republicans ran for office on a platform of cutting spending. but a few new gop lawmakers personally benefit from one of the government's most controversial aid programs -- farm subsidies." you can read more of that in "usa today." robert, tennessee. you are on the air.

good morning. caller: good morning, greta. happy new year. host: happy new year. caller: promote the general welfare -- that is the preamble. that is not in the constitution. why did he not read the constitution? article i says "provide for the common defense and the general welfare." that is the law. boehner isead"boe going to come in and try to act like he is changing everything. i do not think he is going to change anything at all. he would like to get rid of health care for everybody except congressmen. host: john boehner, the next expected speaker of the house. leo, independenct line, go

ahead. caller: i will be watching bernie sanders, myself. host: why? caller: he seems to be the only guy who does not talk about the upper class and the middle class as much as he does the poor. who do you think is going to get hurt the most? is it going to be the rich or the middle-class? no. they are going datum -- they're going to have to make adjustments, but the poor cannot go anywhere except down. host: we'll be talking about the working poor families later this morning. there will be senate rules reform brought up for debate on the opening day of the 112th congress. "reform and the filibuster -- there'll be a vote on whether to change rules to prohibit the

widespread use of the filibuster. americans are fed up with washington gridlock. the senate should seize the opportunity. the key is to find a way to ensure that any minority party -- and the democrats could find themselves there again -- has leverage in the senate without grinding every bill to an automatic call to -- automatic halt." "no lazy filibusters -- at least 10 senators would have to file a filibuster tradition and members would have to speak continuously on the floor to keep the filibuster going." "your rights of the apple -- republicans now routinely filibuster not only the final vote, but the initial motion to even debate, as well as amendments and votes on conference committees." "minority amendments -- harry reid, the majority leader, frequently prevent republicans

from offering amendments because he fears they will lead to more opportunities to filibuster. republicans say they mount filibusters' because they know -- filibusters because they are precluded from offering amendments." that is "the new york times" editorial this morning. you can find those memos on our website, c-span.org. orlando, fla. -- who are you going to be watching in the 112th congress? caller: it is a very hard decision to make. what i say to that is -- challenge accepted. i have to take everything into account. this is not a game. also, my balls. host: unfortunate that we have to end on that type of phone call.

we will be looking at the 112th congress, what to expect from the white house, and what to expect from the senate democrats and the house republican majority. ♪

>> for these children, our children, and all of america's children, the house will come to order. >> with the start of the new congress wednesday, look back at the opening of past sessions online at the c-span video library with every c-span library -- program since 1987, more than 100,000 hours, all searchable, all free. washington, your weight. >> tonight on "the communicators," rey ramsey, president and ceo of technet. that is 8:00 p.m. eastern on c- span2. >> the cs an effort to provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books -- the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, and nonfiction books. you can find our content any

time through the c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus local content vehicle, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington, your way. the c-span network is available in more than 100 million homes. c-span -- greeted by cable, provided as a public service. -- created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal,"" continue. host: we're joined by glenn thrush and lisa mascaro. lisa, walk us through what to expect on the opening day of this 112th congress. guest: it is going to be a new era in washington. we have a divided congress for the first time under the obama administration. we have a large republican majority in the house, a large

number of newcomers who were voted in with the support of the tea party. there'll be a shift from what we have seen. in the senate, we have a much narrower democratic majority. the democrats are still in control of the senate, but with a much smaller margin. you're really going to see the house really taking the lead on a lot of legislation, sending legislation over to the senate that the senate will then have to really look at and decide whether there are opportunities for the senate to work with the republican-controlled house on the issues or whether the senate will be the last line of defense for the obama administration on proposals that democrats cannot live with. we will see, obviously, the opening on wednesday -- the pomp and circumstance of the new folks getting sworn in.

we have been hearing that incoming house speaker john boehner is not going to be having the big parties and galas that we have seen in the past, wanting to have a much more austere presentation of his rise to the position that he has long wanted. then we will see them get down to work fairly quickly. we've seen a lot of talk about the agenda that house republicans want to launch a real quickly. host: they want to begin with the retail -- repeal of the health care law. we heard fred upton talking about the repeal. have you heard anything from the white house about his effort? guest: i think they feel relatively confident that that is not going to happen.

he said that he felt that was -- there was momentum -- more momentum than he expected. he also talked about a piecemeal approach. i think that they are girding for that piecemeal approach. there is a lawsuit in florida that involves 20 attorneys general and governors that they view as a very significant threat. there is concern that this issue could snowball and a momentum. a deeper concern is the court of public opinion. the white house knows that they have to reprint health care. they have to script or redefine it. they are significantly concerned about the legal issues. host: fred upton said they want to have this symbolic vote before the state of the union address. what are you hearing about the timing of that and what he says

is a piece by piece attempt to repeal it? guest: i would imagine, if they're going to have that vote, it would be in the next couple of weeks. there is not much time between now and then. i really think that will set the tone, right, of where some of the democrats and more conservative democrats who remain in the house are -- if there is any broader support for that. i think the outcome of that vote will certainly set the tone for how they begin this piecemeal approach. they will really start trying to take a swing at health care through all of these different mechanisms. through funding and different policy hits. host: representative darrell issa is taking over the house oversight committee. "darrell issa reveals list of

investigations. they will investigate how regulation in packs job creation, the role of fannie mae and freddie and-- impacts job creation, the role of fannie mae and freddie mac, and the causes of the market meltdown." guest: darrell issa has made no secret of his willingness to come down -- come out swinging on these issues. help me here. guest: dan burton. guest: gosh, back into whitewater and the vince foster suicide -- all of these issues. what you're seeing from issa is a more policy-oriented lineup. but there is no secret about him wanting to use the power of subpoena to go after these

issues one at a time. host: "new gop oversight chairman calls administration 'corrupt.'" guest: there are two darrell issa's. i have heard in described as the chuck schumer of california -- him described as the chuck schumer of california. he sees a camera and he cannot help himself. i hope that darrell issa shows up to play. we could see a repeat of that famous investigator during the clinton years who had the pumpkin in his backyard to allegedly recreate the vince foster suicide. it would play well into the republicans' hands. he made that comment on the rush limbaugh show about the

administration being the least corrupt. to a certain extent, the white house feels they have an advantage. i do not think they perceived darrell issa as a threat. host: we saw that the white house is hiring lawyers to prepare for this. what are you hearing about that? how many lawyers? what is the strategy? guest: there are differing reports. between a half dozen and eight attorneys. i was talking to an investigator who mentioned there are a lot of people on the hill, particularly in elijah cummings, that the administration will take too much of a legalistic approach. there is a sense from the clinton ministration that the white house -- clinton administration that the white house might want to be more transparent and not fight issa note-by-note.

are they going to lawyer up too much? a lot of democrats think this needs to be a pr offensive against issa. guest: that is one point that you sort of got to. throughout this house republican majority, there is a question overreach. how much can the house republicans pursue their agenda and pursue some of these agendas -- issues without overstepping too much? the american people want to focus on jobs and the economy and, you know, on health care reform and trying to go back and dismantle the health care bill -- a lot of americans, voters -- they feel like they want to turn the page on these issues and move on. the same i think would be issa investigations -- with the issa

investigations. the house needs to walk a fine line as to how they go after their agenda so that they do not lose this war -- the support they have gained from voters. we have seen polls that voters are supportive of republicans to a point, but they are not enamored. host: one big issue that is likely to come up and continue up until the vote -- the debt ceiling vote. there were discussion on "face the nation -- there was a discussion on "face the nation." take a look and we will talk about it. a mother will be a vote on raising the debt ceiling. will -- >> there will be a vote on raising the debt ceiling. will you vote to raise the debt ceiling? >> i voted against the tax cut bill because i thought it blew a

hole in the tax -- in the budget. ship toe republicans' run. this is an adult game. >> mike, this is going to be one of the big boats. you risk having the government come to a standstill. >> raising the debt ceiling, to me, is absolutely irresponsible. we have been spending money for so long that we do not have. you say, ok, we'll raise taxes. tax revenue comes from people working. >> michele bachmann? >> at this point, i am not in favor of raising the debt ceiling. i have a petition i am urging people to sign to urge their members of congress not to raise the debt ceiling. congress has had a big party the last two years. they could not spend enough money. now they are standing back and

talking as if -- how are you going to solve this big spending crisis? g -- it isare willin worth the risk? >> it is not good for anyone to shut the government down. it is important for democrats, who are so willing to spend money, to be part of solving this. host: glenn thrush, how was the white house strategizing on this? guest: i think they are thinking, john boehner, this is your life. you just saw the vice that the republican leadership is in. you have michele bachmann, these 78-80 new republican, a lot of them tea party types who would likely have voted against the debt ceiling anyway. this has to get passed. can you imagine what the bond

markets would look like if it did not? john boehner needs to figure out a way to get this done. this gives the administration -- boston goals be was on the show yesterday. -- austan goolsbee guest: i think that is exactly the point here. i cannot say what john boehner's plan is here. he will have to lead is conference. he has to convince these folks that even though this is something that many of them do not want to do, do not want to be on record broken for, he has said -- you hear this often now. the adult conversation. we have to be the adults in the room. i think that is something that will be a difficult conversation for him to have. host: we spoke to some of the

new members who were unsure about this debt ceiling vote. mulvaney from south carolina said that if i can vote for some sort of plan on spending cuts, maybe i will go along with this debt ceiling vote. guest: 1 avenue could be something like what the democrats had done on these difficult vote, where you all- out a splintered vote. -- allow a splintered vote. there are those legislative tracks they can do to make the vote not seen as difficult. i would not be surprised if that happens. i cannot say what their strategy will be, at this point. host: 50 in. memphis, tennessee. go ahead.

-- vivianne. caller: they talk about cutting and spending in the congress, so let them take a pay cut. number two, let them buy their own insurance. no. 3. fine big companies for sending jobs over week -- overseas. no. 4. stall all wars. -- stop all the wars. thank you very much. host: lisa, why don't you take that? guest: those are a lot of issues that will be addressed by the congress, at this point. there is a movement out there pushing the new congress not to take -- especially the house republicans -- not to take

government insurance. as far as pay cuts, salaries, perhaps that is something that they will try to do. not take the annual pay raise. i could see that happening again. the wars are what they are. the administration is trying to wind down the wars, but congress will keep on funding them. guest: this issue with the war will be a tremendously difficult problem for the president. there is obviously a lot of dissonance, every time joe biden opens up his mouth on this topic, we have new pressure to move forward with withdrawal. we have an interesting dynamic here, and progressives in the house, which have been down -- boiled down to a more liberal

court, will be pressuring the president to move forward on these things. if you're asking people to cut back on things that are precious to the democratic party and your spending billions on the pentagon, you will have a lot of pressure. he will also have this unlikely alliance between the left in the house and tea party folks who see these things as being wasteful. host: so where do you get bipartisanship with those that have been up there for a while? you will get tensions with the new members of congress coming in. guest: absolutely. strange bedfellows all over the map. rand paul, the new senator from kentucky, is probably not a guy

who is going to swallow these large or appropriations bills time after time. host: dora in chicago. go ahead. caller: these two show why the media is so dysfunctional. do you realize we had an election in 2008? we elected a democratic president by the largest% margin -- percent margin, first time in history. we elected a house full of democrats. media, no mandates. but now the people have spoken.

the republicans control the house. now we have to listen. this is a mandate. no! go away media? . guest: i do not think anyone says there is a mandate here. i believe we are saying the opposite. both john boehner and mitch mcconnell -- this is an overstatement -- but the white house has them right where they want them, taking political responsibility here. i think the next election could be just as tumultuous in the other direction. host: next phone call. theresa. caller: i am calling in reference to republicans and democrats. people should not be signing up for if they are republican or

democrat. they should sign up as independents. the upper tax people, i believe they should stay where they are. the middle-class should stay where they are, but they also need to look at low-income people. where i live is a bad neighborhood. people are all over the streets begging for food, going to jail for a loaf of bread, and nobody seems to care about that. the government needs to come together and stop playing in the republican-democrat rule. guest: just to back up to what glenn had said on the bush tax cuts, in the old congress, it was interesting to see the coalition who did not vote for that. i think that was a window into

these new kinds of coalitions we might see in the congress, when you were mentioning the rand the liberal base not wanting to fund the war. some interesting partnerships between jim demint, bernie sanders not wanting to fund the tax cut. there is that potential out there. also, in the spirit of independence, we are seeing some interesting movements out there. for example, lisa murkowski, scott brown. they have joined forces with democrats on some issues while remaining republican. both of them voted on the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. obviously, someone like senator lieberman constantly playing that role in the middle. so you have these members of

congress who can and will play a pivotal role, especially in the senate, too. we have a number up for reelection in 2012. all of those elected in 2006, a lot of democrats were sort of from red states who came in on that wave, and will be having to defend their seats. senator tester, a castle, -- macaskill, webb. host: in that same had a net of partisanship, who will in the white house be watching in the congress for who they can work with? guest: first of all, the mcconnell-obama relationship has thawed a little bit.

not to just focus on the headlines, but john boehner is someone who they feel they have had the opportunity to work with. last year, he took a plane ride with the president, watched the super bowl, thought that they could build a relationship. i think the president will be looking to build more of a relationship with richard lugar after this start treaty. he will also be working with susan collins. host: on which issues can he help them out? guest: on a broad range of foreign-policy issues. the great christmas gift for the white house has been well below expectations, the sense that this bill dissolve into partisan

gridlock. that opens up a tremendous number of avenues to get any achievement is seen as movement. republicans now have some incentive to deal with the democrats to counteract this idea that they are the party of no. i think you will see, along the margins, at least early on -- but any deal that the white house can conclude with republicans will be a big victory. host: mike on the republican line. you are on the air. caller: i just wanted to know what was happening with the country and our policies, dealing with israel? host: glenn thrush? peace talks?

guest: we are holding talks with the palestinian authorities. the president has had all of the parties convened twice in the past year. this all comes down to the issue of west bank settlements. there is a level of frustration in the white house with benjamin netanyahu, the israeli prime minister. for the first time, really, in quite some time, the ball is in the israeli and palestinian's corp., and the president is waiting to see what the israelis do. it has not been the crown in central foreign policy issue, particularly with these two wars. host: dan in indiana. independent line. caller: now that republicans

have the house again, i reflect back on 30 years of class warfare, where the rich have become rich and the poor and middle-class are desperate and jobless. if he looked back at the legislation passed by the republican party, it was to this end that this happened. once it did happen, they did everything they could to stop any remedy for the middle class. i suspect john boehner will blame it on the port. -- the poor. they have campaigned against government. basically, we, the people, our government, and we are basically the problem. so i see them going towards the

end of the crude across -- coup de gras to the middle-class. now they are talking about shared pain. where was the what they through this whole campaign? guest: obviously, the economy is just going to reign over this session of congress. initially, economists were saying the unemployment rate was going to rise again briefly before it had any hope of dipping this year, as the economic stimulus bill comes to conclusion. i am not sure what the new provisions in the tax law that was passed -- payroll tax cut, jobless benefit extensions -- if that will ease some of that. host: that was the front page

of the "houston chronicle." as you are talking, i wonder if that might ease -- guest: i have not done the research on that to know. i do know that the general thought was that the pain was going to get worse before it gets better. that is something hanging over the congress, obviously, leading into the elections. i think both democrats and republicans will come under scrutiny for that. you have got people out there that are just dealing with so many issues, foreclosure, joblessness issues, all of these things hanging over the country. if republicans in the house cannot show movement on that, i am certain the blame for that -- if obama cannot show leadership

on that -- he too will be hurt in that. guest: there was a great documentary that hbo made about the 2008 campaign. it was obama preparing for a debate with john mccain. he goes to the first three points and he says, what is the fourth? jobs! there is this idea that they did not focus enough on jobs. republicans in the house and senate, for all of these other preoccupations, health care reform, issues involving trade, to the extent they do not focus on jobs primarily puts them in the same situation obama has been in. host: this is in "the washington post" --

we are expecting some changes to the president's economic team. guest: larry summers has been the real central figure of the economic council. we had heard it would be a female business woman who would come in. but since then, the economic gravity of the situation, the need to fill larry summers' large shoes, we hear it could be a former clinton adviser. the problems are deep pockets, connections to wall street. spurling had risen up in the past few weeks, but we expect an announcement this week. host: what else does the president planned to do with this economic team?

guest: the president is embarking on this large reenvisioning. the only two people that know right now are the president and his interim chief of staff. the big change that is going to occur is david axelrod, the president's trust senior adviser, is it out the door, some time around the state of the union. he will be replaced by david pilaf -- ploff. host: loretta, democrat. cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: happy new year. it looks like the republicans want a fight, and they are going

to lose. and the gop lost their fiscal responsibility card and their christian card, on the way to the bank to cash that tax cut check. the christian right did not stand up for the poor. what happened to them? what happened to that offshore bank tax audit? there was supposed to be some type of investigation to give them some time to get their business in order and to pay taxes. something like billions of dollars that they have been

stashing in offshore banks. host: lisa mascaro? guest: there are all kinds of loopholes that allow businesses to put their money offshore. there were some things done to bring some of that money in. i was going to say one thing. it was interesting, she talked about the role of the christian right in the republican party. that is something that we have not totally seen emerge in the house. john painter, who sometimes come under criticism from his -- john who sometimes come under criticism from his right wing, for not being as conservative, christian -- and of course, he maintains he is

very strong on the conservative social issues, namely his a opposition to abortion. the caller had mentioned the presence of the conservative christian right. i do not know if we have really seen them emerge in the house. boehner has tried to keep a lot of those social issues off the agenda and focus more on the fiscal issues. certainly, there are a lot of folks in and out of congress pressuring him to do otherwise. host: there was a moment yesterday on "face the nation" between anthony wiener of new york and mike kelly of pennsylvania. >> this is what america loves, both sides pointing the finger at the other side. we talk about having an adult

conversations, and we need to start acting like adults. we have a huge problem. being on the outside my whole life, i do not know how you look these folks in the eye at home and say that we have done a good job. >> now you are one of those folks. it is your job and the majority 's job to govern. the last time you were in charge, you drove the government to a shutdown. all of this "you" stuff has to end today. guest: anthony wiener is running for governor of new york, and everything needs to be put into context. 60 was a terrible number for democrats. it really give them the illusion of a mandate.

now everyone will have to do business and republicans are hoping that democrats will walk through a minefield. host: in the cq guide to the new congress they say -- lisa mascaro, what are you hearing about this tea party caucus and its influence? guest: when she first launched the caucus, there are not many people in the 111th. we will have to see, who among the 112th, will join. we also saw michelle bachman exert tea party influence within the republican conference by running for a beer shipped post

-- a leadership post. so i think there is an acknowledgement among many of these republicans that they want to court the tea party but they also want to keep their options open and not be totally beholden to them that is a find dance they will have to do. it is still unclear how that will play out in the congress. host: back to phone calls. georgia. richard, on the republican line. caller: i have noticed there has been four, five democrats, at two or three independents, liberals. both of these journalists are liberal democrats. what you are doing, what the

liberal media, and c-span is doing, is setting the republicans up to be the bogeyman, the blame -- have all the blame for our economic troubles for the next two years. i cannot understand how two people like this, in with their upbringing and education, can sway them so they write this liberal democrat support of obama and the democrats, who are carrying us to economic ruin? guest: i can forward some of the calls that i get from the white house talking about the political strife they are in.

i am sorry, republicans won an historic victory in the fall, but they face some significant challenges, and we would not be doing our job if we don played that. guest: i would echo that. seriously, you have not read our work. i work speaks for itself. we played down the middle. that is what we are here to do. we call it as we see it. as glenn said, there are enormous responsibilities. host: next phone call. cindy in cincinnati. caller: i have a comment. back on december 17, 2010, president obama passed an extension for unemployment. for those people who reached 99 weeks, they were hoping for this extension and nothing.

you go to the job service and there is no job service. poor people are robbing, stealing, they are killing themselves because they have no way to support their family. how can anyone in government go to sleep at night knowing that they might kill their child or themselves because there is no way to take care of them? we are sending plenty of money overseas, and there are people who need it, which is good, but who is going to help the poor people? host: unemployment benefits, the fight that has continued in the 111th congress. what about the 112th? guest: we will not see that in the first year of the congress because of the tax law that was

signed, extending the bush tax cuts. there was also the one-year extension of jobless benefits through most of 2011. the caller is right, this does not cover the 99ers. certain states have benefits available for folks up to 99 weeks. after that, even with this extension, nobody will be able to receive benefits beyond the 99 weeks. we hear from readers all the time that there are plenty of people who are still unemployed, who after 99 weeks are unable to find jobs and are relying on the benefits and will not be getting them. the jobless benefits battle, we saw the tip of that in the 111th congress. in february, senator bunning was the lone senator fighting

against jobless benefits. few people were on his side. within six weeks, several republicans joined his cause. we saw conservative democrats in the house concern -- the issue here is paying for the benefits, i should back up. you really saw this massive shift in congress, where they had been willing to support jobless benefits, then in the middle of last year, became much more hesitant. the only way they were able to get those benefits was tying it to the tax cut. that is where we are. we will get through this year and see where the economy is. there could be another battle by the end of the year. guest: dennis in marburg, maryland. caller: happy new year to

everyone on the panel. you are doing a great job, press. i just want to say, correct me if i am wrong, sam clemens or mark twain once said, i am not part of an organized party, i am a democrat. as you can see, the republicans are already complaining. the gavel is not even down yet, correct me if i am wrong. they are already complaining about the media, and this and that, and we know what they are going to do in these committees. they are going to go after our president, all the things that my disorganized party got through, even if it was in the name of the lame duck session.

republicans look great, they look together like they can handle all sorts of things, but doggone it, they cannot govern. before newt gingrich came out with his contract for america, republicans had not been in power for 40 years. there is a reason for that. we're getting ready to see this again. americans have such short memories. in closing, i just want people to see the true heart of these tea party members, all of these right-wing republicans, congressmen and women who are going to be up there --

host: we have to leave it there because we're running out of time. going back to this opening day of the congress, this wednesday. when will republicans bring up this, as you go rule, and what will we be seen? -- cut as you go rule, and what will we be seeing? guest: majority leader eric cantor has said that he would like to, once a week, put an item on the chopping block for spending cuts. if you go to the house republican websites, you can see the items that they would propose for cutting. funding for npr, different

welfare programs. the range of items for cutting to get up to that $100 billion they want to eliminate. i would expect to see that right off the bat, if not wednesday, thursday. i know republicans will be leaving on their retreat next week. there will be a bit of down time in between, but i would imagine we will see stuff right out of the gate. host: the white house plans to respond to the deficit issue in the state of the union address? guest: last year, this idea came up, and the three-year non discretionary spending freeze. i think they would do things to hit that $100 billion mark even more expeditiously. and remember, the president and vice-president has said that their target will be the high

tax cuts that they just signed off on. host: glenn thrush, lisa mascaro, thank you very much. coming up, we will be talking about a new report that finds one in three working families is low income. first, social security and retirement issues. what happened when you raise the retirement age? >> two of our north carolina michael steele -- two of rnc leader's michael steele has said that they will be leaving. the house ethics committee is dropping an investigation into how six lawmakers spend federal travel funds while visiting foreign countries. the committee citing a lack of

evidence and confusing rules on the usage of such funds. stocks are set to start the new year with a lift due to better than expected economic news out of europe. the report shows manufacturing in the year rose on expanded faster than analysts forecast. before the opening bell, dow jones futures are up 93 points. >> tonight on "and the ," rey ramsey, president of technet. >> experience american history tv starting saturday at 8:00

eastern. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. eyewitness accounts of the events that shaped our nation. the visit museums, historical sites, and college campuses, as the leading historians tell into america's past. >> for these children, our children, and all of america's children, the house will come to order. >> with the start of the new congress this wednesday, look back at the openings of congress in past years. all searchable and all free at the c-span library. it is washington, your way. host: andrew biggs is a scholar

at the american enterprise institute, wrote this piece, making the case for raising the retirement age. what economic impact would that have? guest: social security benefits you can claim as early as 62, even though the official retirement age is 66. if you claim benefits early, you take a 30% benefit cut. that lasts throughout your life, not just until you reach the full retirement age. when social security started, we could not claim benefits at 62. the earliest retirement age then was 65. now that is the most common age at which people claim. the problem is, if people have plenty of money for retirement, that is great, but the problem is people do not. the question is, does social

security have enough money to support those people? the typical person will live around 82, 83, so they are spending about one-third of their life in retirement. i am not sure that is something we can afford. if we push the retirement age back a little bit, it will help taxes, but it will also mean a much easier retirement. host: in "u.s. news and record" there is an article talking about the retirement age. they write -- are you saying we should do this immediately, or how? guest: one of the nice things about social security, in general, any changes are likely

to be phased in over a long period of time. the normal increase it is from 65 to 67. that was passed in 1983 and did not begin until 2000 and will not be completed until 2023. so we have this lead time for people to adjust to it. especially today, in a recession, you do not want to say, all of you who are 62 now need to work until you are 65. i think in correcting people to stay in the work force longer will help them, the economy, and the federal budget. host: in the near term, social security is not in trouble phili. phillip moeller writes -- he goes on to write this, about

rising -- raising the retirement age -- guest: talking about social security's overall plan for help, you are right, the plan is solvent around 27. after that, you would have more cuts. for every retiree, every survivor, every disabled person. it is a pretty big problem, looking out over the long term. the question about thinking about different from mortality,

-- what people do not realize is the typical person claims retirement early is not someone who has a serious health problem, not someone who has lost their job. only about 15% of people cite either poor health or unemployment has reason for claiming early. for most people, it is a choice. we can structure the benefits and policy to protect the people who need it the most by letting people who cannot claim disabilities early, while also encouraging people to work longer. host: last phone call. and junior from the low opinion, texas. caller: i have called every senator, congressman, every

governor of the state of texas. i can show them on a diagram exactly how to do everything. there is nobody that will return my call. if you would, c-span, anybody that is a congressman or senator, please have them call me. all the well educated people up there, all those professors will agree with me 100% -- at least 98% of them will. your ok, so let's get to idea specifically? caller: i cannot explain it over the phone. i can show them on a diagram.

host: let's talk about the baby boomers that are set to retire in 2011. this is the first year that we will see the baby boom generation takes security benefits. guest: the first baby boomers turn 65. this is the first year they can claim that medicare benefits -- claim medicare benefits. we have about 10,000 people leaving the work force per day. that means 10,000 more people collecting benefits, 10 doesn't you're contributing to these -- 10,000 who are not contributing to these benefits. it is really this budget tsunami coming at us. we have to find a way to smooth

out these things out. host: what does it mean that one out of three working americans do not have retirement savings beyond social security, and many of them rely totally on social security alone. guest: a lot of people depend heavily on social security for their retirement income. part of the that is a shame -- as i view it -- it is not just low income people. it is middle and high income people who should be depending less on social security. i think it needs to be more generous for those people at the low income end, but middle and high income people will have to save more because we are going into a tighter budget picture in the future. host: next phone call. angela.

caller: one thing you do not hear people talking about, he is talking about paying or old people on social security. how about the kids going into welfare? if people think that being poor is so bad, why do they keep on bringing children into this world? host: how old are you, are you taking social security benefits? caller: i do not qualify for that yet. i have worked as a waitress, clerk, all of my life. i see the girl next door smoking cigarettes on her porch, talking

on the phone. she has four kids. i do not have any kids. we reward them for not doing anything. host: you consider yourself a republican, you have voted republican? caller: yes, but right now, i am not sure because they could not even give us $250 to have a nice christmas. meanwhile, we are letting the rich people keep more money. host: not a popular option, raising the retirement age. guest: she is saying i have a comfortable job, which i do. there are a lot more people who have physically more demanding jobs. for those folks, working longer is harder. no question. at the same time, in the past,

we did work longer. the typical person did not start claiming until the age 68 and a half. these are times when people worked on farms, coal mines, steel lines. one advantage of having a service economy is it is less demanding on people. if people in the 1950's could work to 68, people in 2020, 2030, could probably work until 65. that does not mean there will not be exceptions. disability is there for people who cannot truly work. host: cleveland, ohio. kneel on the independent line. -- neal on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am i diabetic.

i had to have my right thumb cut off, my right leg below my knee. my leg, they want to amputate my left foot because it is black. i am also legally blind with my vision. i have been on disability retirement social security for the last eight years and i am afraid these republicans are going to set me out on the curb. i hope obama can negotiate so that i can at least keep my wheelchair. guest: there is 0% chance you will be kicked to the curb. one of the truisms of social security reform -- once people have claimed the benefits, we do not kick them off. what we are talking about with reforms is changing benefits over the long term. i mention changing the retirement age. from the time it was passed to implemented, 40 years.

what people need to remember is, if you are near retirement, nothing is going to change for you. for younger folks, we need to find different ways of financing the program, benefiting people, which will target things better, and retain the safety net that people truly need, but encourage people to work longer, saved more for retirement. host: john on the democratic line. delaware. caller: i would just like to know -- hello? host: we are listening. caller: i just want to know how come social security is giving someone like me, 47 years old, a hard time getting it when i really need it? i have no savings. the company i worked at fired me

because they did not want to report an injury at work, so they fired me. i need help. the government, all they want to do -- they are not helping. host: an estimated 156 million workers, 93% of workers, are covered under social security. guest: to touch on john's question, he is in the process of applying for disability. this is slightly different, but the application is difficult, long. when i was at the social security commission, there was a lot of work going on to streamline that. you do not want people waiting for two years for a decision. it is a difficult task.

the administration needs to follow what the law says, and the law is somewhat complicated. when we think about retirement, social security was intended to be one leg of a three-legged stool. you have your pension from your employer and then your savings. more and more, people are relying on social security. we want to encourage people who can save more to do that. so things like universal 401k plans. for the typical person, that makes sense. a lot of people basically forget to sign up. if everybody saves what they should for retirement, that makes social security's john a lot easier, so that it can focus on the poor people who truly can knock afford anything.

guest: the numbers you are siding, availability of pensions. that is completely correct. those are basically going away for a variety of reasons. they are difficult for employers to manage, they can be risky, but also, a more mobile work force that wants to shift from job to job. so a defined contribution is much better for the types of workers. just because people do not have benefit does not mean they havto not have a pension whatsoever.

we to make sure people have more savings. host: here is a week from a viewer -- tweet from a viewer -- guest: there is a case to be made. we know that the personal savings rate has dropped a lot over the past 50 years or so. a number of studies have said one of the reasons for that is the increase in social security and medicare benefits. if that is coming through in common programs, rationally, people would save less. -- entitlement programs, rationally, people would save less. so are we filling in the cab for people who cannot work longer? the question is, how do we provide for those people who

need it, and are we doing everything that we should? host: next phone call. republican line. john. caller: if a person retires at 62, compared to 65, 66 -- here are some hypothetical numbers. at 62, social security would be $1,100. if you decided to retire at 66, $1,800. how many more years would you have to live and draw social security to make up for the money that you did not get, if you were 66 -- 62 to 66? guest: i am not sure if i can do the math precisely, but this is

a common exercise people go through when they think about retiring, the break-even age? at what age do i need to retard to make up for those lost benefits? -- retire to make up for those lost benefits? it is somewhere around the age of 78 or so. a person who does the light claiming it is, in all likelihood, going to get that money back. but i think that is a bad way to think about it. at what choice do i get the most money? if you delay from 62 to 66, and you increase your benefits from all $700 to $1,800 a month, that will last for your life. these are non-trivial chances.

having that extra $700 a month when you are 90, 95 -- at that point, you do not have the option of going back to work. so going back to work is not a gamble. it is essentially the protection against poverty in old age. caller: i had heard that you would have to live another 10, 12 years to draw your money out at 62. it depends on your lifestyle. i smoke. chances are, i will not live to be 80, 90. i always conserve money in my home but it depends on your situation. some people should consider drawing early, if they do not have any outstanding bills, and kind of relax for a little bit.

guest: i will just make two points. even for those people with a short life expectancy -- i smoke. i am a man, rather than a woman. even for those folks, there is a lot of uncertainty for how long you are going to live. having that extra benefit protect you from running out of money in old age, if you live a long time. a second point -- what i would ask -- as if you are married. if you delay retirement, that delays the benefits that you might get, as well as the benefits that your spouse might get. even if i knew then i would die one year from today, delaying claiming, that money would go to my spouse. host: sal is a democrat in new

york. go ahead. caller: why don't we just open up the reserves and sell our own gas and all the money the government makes from gas? they could have plenty of money to fix the deficit and put more money into social security and we may not have a problem. the only thing that nobody takes into consideration, when you want to buy extra insurance, it is so high you cannot afford it. i just had a lot of dental work and it put me in the poorhouse. it gets extremely expensive. guest: certainly, you want to do everything you can to have a strong economy. there are a variety of things we can do to have the strongest economy we can. that means more resources to support the growing number of retirees without taking money away from #folks.

we do not want this to be a zero sum game. certainly, having a strong economy makes sense. i cannot comment on your dental insurance. host: here is an e-mail from bonnie in texas. guest: no way the disability formula is, it is based on the retirement formula. in general, you get the benefit you would have received had you claim that the full retirement age. if we raise the retirement age or increase in early eligibility, that is not going to harm disabled people. they will still that the full benefits they have coming to them. at the same time, it is not true

to say that disability will pay more than retirement. people who are disabled 10 to short work careers, often people with lower income. but the disability program, you would not want to be on disability benefits, if you could avoid it. host: stephen writes -- guest: that is one reason why we could see a natural increase in the number of people who retire. we have already seen that in the past couple of decades. we have people leaving the work force rapidly and businesses need to fill those spots. we are not seeing that today because of the unusual levels of unemployment we have, but going over the next 20 years, we will have more demand for older workers. some of this may solve itself. what we want to have is policy

complementary to that, that said to older workers, we want you to stay in the work force longer. the key is to keep people in the work force longer. if people can keep their same job for a few extra years, beverley does pay off. host: south bend, indiana, mary on the independent line. caller: i've been listening to you talking about keeping people on the work force longer. i am a 63-year-old widow on a widow's pension and i would love to go back into the workforce, but i find? social security penalizes the amount of money i'm able -- social security -- but i find that social security penalizes the amount of money and able to make. guest: what mary is referring to is something called the retirement earnings tax.

i'm actually glad she brought this up it gives me a chance to dispel some myths concerning social security tax. if you are someone claiming early benefits, there is a certain level of earnings around $14,000, and if you earn above that in a given year, your retirement benefits are reduced by about 50 cents for every dollar that you learned. people view this as a 50% tax. people worked right up to the $14,000 earning limit and stock. you do not want people to do that. what people do not know is that you lose earnings due to early retirement, once you reach full retirement, your security is raised to make up for that. it is basically a delay in benefits. the argument is that if you are working, you do not need the money so much, so we will put it off to a later time when you really do need it.

if you are doing the earnings test, you will get that money back later. once you reach 66, they will raise your benefits to account for it. personally, i think it is so confusing that they should just get rid of it and tell everyone to work as much as they can. host: andy in chicago says -- guest: the first point that he makes, when one person retires another person is hired, in a certain basic case that is correct. but that implies there are only so many jobs to go round and that we want people to retire so we can get jobs for younger people. this is the debate you had going on in france several months ago

where college age people were protesting against the raising of the retirement age. it is not because they work sympathizing with their grandparents so much, but because they thought they were going to take their jobs. this idea is that there's only so much work to go around. this is not true. the idea that there are only so many jobs to go round, i just cannot think that is true. host: va, derica, republican line. good morning. caller: earlier, your guest said that when a person began paying social security, they can dip into the life of the fund as a trust fund. i wonder if that is a pile of cash somewhere. if they go to reach into that, or will they actually be reaching into? guest: there is no gold in fort

knox that is going to be used to pay off the trust. it is essentially bonds that the government has issued to itself. when social security runs a surplus, as it has in the past, that money is given to the treasury and social security is given a bond in exchange. when social security goes to redeem the bonds in the trust fund, this -- they have to produce the cast -- the cash, which means they have to raise the money. the trust fund is in days of no economic meaning. it is not real savings there. as long as there is a balance in the trust fund, social security will legally continue to pay full benefits. once the trust fund runs out, as it is projected to do in 2037, legally, social security cannot pay full benefits. it is not allowed to borrow money to pay you your full benefits. it must cut them.

the trust fund has no economic meaning. i cannot think building up a trust fund will help us in the future. it just has a legal meaning. if you to think about your credit card statement, that tells you how much you have barred from the credit card company. the trust fund says how much of the government has barred from social security. the government has to pay debt back, but it will pay the back by getting money from you. people should not be complacent, thinking that the trust fund will make these problems go away. host: next phone call is from tommy in maryland. caller: i retired about six years ago. january 28 will be six years. i have been waiting all of this time to collect social security. i am only 61 right now. i will be 62 in august. i worked more than 35 years in one job. i worked more than 40 years.

to listen to our our politicians to say we should work to an older age, a lot of people cannot do those jobs. you cannot drive a truck if you are not in good enough health. you cannot lay bricks. some boca not work until they are 65 or 70 -- some people cannot work until they are 65 or 70. guest: i think it is a good question. i guess the point of your question that you have to ask yourself, clearly, we know people that cannot work longer. the question is, how many of them are they? if the typical early retiree is somebody that cannot work lager, the answer to that is basically, no. -- cannot work longer, the answer to that is basically, no. the golden age of american industry, people were to the

working in backbreaking jobs. today, more people working in offices. and are not saying that it is easy work. but to think that someone cannot work beyond 62 in an office when people used to work in factories, that justice not make sense. i am saying that we need to have policies that account that the typical person can work longer and to try to encourage them to do that. host: here is a tweet from of your that is commenting on our discussion about whether or not someone retires, whether that opens up a job. guest: that is certainly possible. the economy is a big animal. trying to break it down to a very simple case of what is going on is hard to do. to go back to an earlier caller,

we want to do is grow the economy, have a strong economy that produces good jobs and good income for as many people as possible. but the idea that we have a zero sum game, only so many jobs to go round, is not only empirically falls, but it is also damaging to our ability to solve these problems because people see us not as coming together to solve a problem, but it is a fight for resources. host: but go to an independent in mount vernon, washington. caller: mr. biggs is reassuring people, and i appreciate that, but recently a friend with the disability who worked all his life, he has diabetes. and the state of washington because of washington's deficit problems send everyone a letter in december that there would be no more foot care, no more hearing aids, no more eyeglasses -- i think there were five things on the list -- and he was in a major panic.

he has been looking in the last few years on whether he will have to have his feet amputated or not. he was in a panic trying to get his eyeglasses before the end of the year because now we are in january and this has gone into effect. this has happened to everyone in washington state on social security. there are a lot of things out there. a man you're reassurances are nice, but it is coming at us in different -- and if your reassurances are nice, but it is coming at us in different ways. guest: 1 to qualify for social security disability, i believe there is a one-year waiting time for in, but after that you are automatically qualify for medicare. that is true of someone who is below 65 or older. you automatically qualify for medicare. if he has reached that point where he is eligible to medicare, -- billone -- eligible for medicare, that will assist his problems somewhat.

i'm not saying that there are not problems with the state in general. host: in tennessee, jackie on the republican line. jackie? i think we lost her. we will move on to sherry in kansas city. caller: good morning. this really irritates me because social security is basically an easy thing to solve. you raise the caps on fica and there might be some other tweaks. i know 7% of the people would be willing to contribute a little bit more because social security is not insolvent. it is probably the easiest program -- 70 percent of the people would be willing to contribute a little bit more because social security is not insolvent.

it is probably the easiest program to fix. guest: when you retire, your benefits are only based on your earnings. someone earning more than that cap is not getting higher benefits. the idea was that social security should be a limited program and people of higher incomes should be sitting on their own. franklin roosevelt really tried to make the program different than what we call relief, or welfare today. the idea is if you have a very progressive tax structure, people would not see it as 8 -- has an earned benefit, but as welfare. one thing going back to the trust fund issue we touched on earlier, it would still generate big surpluses in the short term, which will get spent on other things. then in the long term you will still have a deficit to make up.

the second point, i think there is a limit on how high a tax can and should be on the earned income individuals. it is effectively going from around 35% of two or around 41%. the medicare tax for higher earners has increased, i think it is between 5% and 6%. state income taxes can be as high as 10%. if you apply social security tax on top of that, you can have individuals in higher tax states, oregon or white, were literally paying off 60 cents of every additional dollar they earn to the government. at that point, and i personally just think that is too much point. philosophically, i do not agree with that. we have to think of these solutions in context of

everything else going on. we have other problems resolved. medicare is an enormous problem. we have not fixed any of it, basically. surely, there will be enormous tax revenues going there. if we reduce benefits, people will react by working longer and saving more. low-income people, are a bit different. if we cut jürgen affair -- your benefit, it is a lot harder to make up the difference. -- if we cut your benefits, it is a lot harder to make up the difference. it seems to make sense that use of social security more by reducing benefits to free up revenues where you will need them on medicare and medicaid. guest: andrew biggs is a scholar at the american enterprise institute. he also served in several different roles of the social security administration, most recently as the deputy commissioner in 2007. last fall called here for mr. biggs.

columbia, tenn., will on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. we sure appreciate all the c- span does for us, especially the transparency for all three branches of our government. by the way, i want to compliment you, greta. your the mona lisa on c-span. we appreciate you being -- you are the mona lisa on c-span. do we appreciate you being there. first of all, free enterprise is what built this wonderful nation of ours. from the 1950's all the way up to 2000. this is what the republicans have been telling us, but unfortunately, it is about to destroy america today. capitalism and free enterprise is what got us -- got monopolies is so far out of order. and you have trouble with the economy because of what is going on in all three branches of our

government. in major reforms, both in immigration and the health and financial reforms, they are all affected the middle class worker. i am so thankful that i have my social security. i have reached my retirement age and and getting good benefits from it. but for people coming up behind me, they are going to be really crippled for what people like wal-mart has done to all of these small businesses in america. host: let me ask you before andrew biggs response, you said you were able to live on your benefits. have you had to cut back? guest: no, i am very thankful for america and the entitlement programs. because i'm a retired schoolteacher, i have a small pension from that. plus i have my social security,

too. they both have made it comfortable for me and my family. guest: if you looked around the world and you look through history, free enterprise and vibrant economies have done more to pull people out of poverty than anything else. it is a strong economy that pull people out of poverty, provides them with good jobs. it also provides us the resources to have programs to help people who cannot help themselves. certainly, when you go to the specifics of different bills, i think there are issues there. but a broad case, it is free enterprise that helps make the resources, generates the resources, it helps keep people out party. that is an important thing to barrett -- keeps people out of poverty. that is an important thing to bear in mind. that is a tough thing to do when you do not have a strong

economy. we need to think about what we can do to keep the economy strong and growing into the future. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. pardee is our discussion next. the working poor families project is out with a new report saying that nearly one in three american families in the u.s. are low income and continued to struggle in this economy. first, an update from c-span radio. >> today, governor jerry brown will be sworn in as california's 39th governor. the state entered a general becomes all of the second person to serve three terms in that post. that is tenure as the 34 governor from 1975 to 1983 was before voters imposed term limits, allowing him to seek office again at age 72. you can watch the inauguration on c-span2. while vacationing in hawaii,

president obama signed the health and compensation act. the new law enacted today provides aid to the survivors of september 11 attacks and first responders to became sick after working at ground zero. and more violence in iraq. the u.s. military says the two american soldiers have died in central iraq. they said -- statement released today says they were killed in operations late last night. they ended combat operations in iraq in late september. >> "the communicators" -- how the federal government communication policies directly affect technology companies. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> for these children, our children, and for all of america's children, the house will come to order. >> with the start of the new congress this wednesday, look

back at the opening of past sessions on line at the c-span video library with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours, all searchable, all free -- is washington, your great. >> you are watching c-span, britney you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal" our live call-in program connecting you with policy makers and journalists. during the week, house coverage and every week night, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends you can see our signature programs. you can also watch our programming any time add c- span.org and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span, washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies.

host: brendan robertson is -- brandon roberts is with us from the project -- working poor families project. 45 million people lived in low- income families. these are 2009 statistics. where do you get these statistics? how did you come up with them? guest: thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak about our recent report on low- income families in america. this is a 9-year-old initiative that focuses on the examining --

examining the conditions of working families in america. since 2004, we have been looking at u.s. census data on an annual basis, and thank you to the census for now having an american committee survey, which generates the senses on an annual basis rather than having to wait 10 years. each year we have a chance to go in and look at the numbers. the most recent data available is what came out in 2009 in november. the we have a non-partisan data specialist group in d.c. called the population reference bureau. they analyze that data for us each year, and we generate conditions -- generate data on conditions for u.s. working families on hold. and later this spring will -- we will release information for the individual states. host: some people might be wondering if these numbers have

changed in 2010. guest: we would assume looking at the trajectory of what happened of them last nine years. -- what has happened over the last nine years. our guess is that the numbers will not get better, but worse. what we see in 2009 represents a trajectory of the last six to eight years where the conditions for working families have gotten worse, not better. since the recession has -- the issues with the recession have persisted into 2010. we are expecting to see much the same when we look at the numbers later this year. host: what is going on? why these numbers in 2009? and do your suspect, it will continue into 2010? guest: clearly, the great recession has taken its toll. we talked about in our report that we have had issues in the last six to eight years with the percentage of low-income families increasing, but in small bits over that time frame.

what we have seen since 2008 is 8% of low-income families actually increasing to 30% in 2009. that is a pretty significant jump. one report shows that movement from 2000 to how to, 2009. -- from 2002 to 2009. the trajectory is not a good one. given that unemployment has remained high, that it really has been a stubborn, difficult recovery, we would expect much, the same in 2010. host: congress and the obama at ministration have passed unemployment benefits. they continue to extend those. medicaid under the new health care law has been extended. several other things for the working poor. why has that not worked? or has it? guest: we have had some good things happen. clearly, congress and the

administration have taken some positive steps to try to address issues around working families, particularly low- income working families. but we believe much more needs to be done. clearly, the recession with unemployment at 9.8%, the lack of jobs, one of the important numbers i think to keep in mind is as we looked at what happened between 2008 and 2009, we had several thousand low- income working families fall out of the working families. meaning, 700,000 families no longer worked enough to be able to be classified as a working family. that is not surprising given that the unemployment is 9.8%. there are 15 million americans that have been unemployed over the last couple of years. it is not surprising, but it is a reflection of what has been happening to low-income working families. if i could just point out, as we think about low-income in

america, we often tend to assume one of the myths that people have in their minds. we assume that families are low- income because they do not work. our look -- one thing as we look at the data, we've worked -- we focus on working families. we focus on the date of families were the parents get up and go to work every morning and have a substantial work ethic over the course of the year, and despite playing by the rules they are low-income. host: how you define low income? guest: we define that as 200% of the parvin level for families. host: in dollar amounts? -- of the poverty level for families. host: in dollar amounts? if guest: we are talking roughly $43,000 per year, and that is the maximum they can have. host: the former majority leader in house for republicans wrote a column today.

by 2035, the congressional budget office predicts that total spending for just medicaid will increase from 5% of gdp to and nearly 10%. guest: one of the things that i think we have to take into account is that recessions are costly. they are costly to families. they are costly to the

government. they are costly all across the board. the quickest way to address these issues is to get the economy going. these families that we are talking about our families that want to work. we are talking about families that want to go to work when the economy is good. they had an opportunity to get jobs and did not rely on public assistance resources, if you will. the job growth stopped, opportunities diminish, and these families lost the income they were relying on to keep their families of float. -- but keep their families afloat. host: what does your data to assure you about the benefits of food stamps and allowing your family to grow and possibly get out of poverty? guest: all of our research shows -- all of our understanding about the conditions of these families is that these are families that are working hard. these are families that are

playing by the rules. they are not looking for handouts. they are working to try to achieve the american dream. they want nothing more than to be able to go to work every day. in fact, as we have analyzed the data over the years, we find these families are working, more than one person per year. these are families that will have multiple jobs. both adults in the family, when that exist, are working. maybe just walking down the street, interviewing the folks that we talk to, these folks are the backbone of the economy. these are folks who want nothing more than to achieve the american dream. host: let's go to rick on the democratic line noin jackson. caller: i think a lot of what has happened is nafta.

it took some good american jobs away and then a person loses the job and he has to go out of work for minimum wage again. plus, minimum wage has not been raised since 1994. the cost of living is $17. guest: there are lots of reasons why the job growth in the u.s. has not grown as we would like it to over the last few years, , whether its trade is our internal domestic economy. the clear understanding is that there are opportunities to facilitate and expand job growth for these families, and when available, these families will take advantage of that. there are things that public policy can and should be doing to promote those opportunities. host: what about minimum-wage

increase over the years? guest: we talk about the issues around the deficit. minimum wage is an example of the top of public policy that can be put into place that has no bearing on the federal deficit. there are other policies like that. most low-income working families do not receive paid leave. when they have a sickness in the family, when they themselves are sick amount they have nothing to fall back on. they are forced to go to work, or as a result of not going to work, possibly lose their jobs. that again, is not a budget issue with respect to the federal or state government. there are things we can do to create opportunities for these families to get ahead and build economic security, if you will. host: laura is a republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning and happy new year to everyone. i have a specific question with your statistics there, poverty

related, and then a comment. my specific question is, what percentage of black minority and white in poverty are married households? guest: our data show that 51% of low-income working families are headed by two married people in households. the majority are married couples. host: are nanot, so -- guest: no, they are. that is one of those myths about the working majority. the myth is that they are often female headed households. caller: what is the black percentage? if guest: we show that our data that white families comprise about 20% of low-income working

families. and 40% of minority working families are part of the low- income working families equation. however, when we talk specifically about the breakdown of racial and ethnic families within all of the low-income working families, 43% of all low-income working families are white families. black families and hispanic families are less than that. caller: that is because they only make up 13% of the population. the stuff that i lookup shows that 60% of blacks are one parent households. if your interested in public policy changes, you ought to be endorsing -- and especially the first black president ought to be endorsing assonance education. if you teach them not to engage

in -- abstinence education. if you teach them not to engage in behavior that causes this, that would think cents. you also need to put fathers back in those households so they have two-parent incomes. you teach them to -- and rewarding marriage, that is the key. the rewarding marriage through tax policies. guest: i know that congress has supported things like father would initiatives. the only point to clarify here is that we are talking about -- when you look at the numbers you have cited, you are talking about all families in dealing with individuals who are in poverty whether they work or do not work. we specifically focus on families that are working. greta asked this earlier. our definition of what constitutes work is very rigorous. we err on the side of keeping

people out of that definition of work rather than inforincluding. these are folks that work hard. these are not folks that are not interested in the labour market. host: utah, sharon, independent line. caller: you talk about falling out of a working family status. my husband works, but he has got laid off twice in the last few years. he is working again. but i have a theory because it is not well known that you can work -- i was a schoolteacher and then i stopped working to raise my children, planning to go back to work when the children were older. really well known that if you become disabled five years after you left work, you cannot -- you fall into a gatt for you cannot get disability. and you can go back to work because you are disabled.

guest: i'm sorry for the situation you are in, first of all. and secondly, the issue of disability benefits and the rules and regulations, i think there was an excellent interview immediately prior to this one that covered that subject. that is not an area that i'm an expert in. i do know that as we have looked at our data, as the number of low-income working families has increased, one of the key reasons for that is, men in particular, -- and our data supports this. there hours have been cut back substantially -- their powers have been cut back substantially, or if they have lost their jobs. those are the people pinned the low-income strata. host: between 2007 and 2009, the proportion of working women with an unemployed has been more than doubled from 2.4% to 5.4%.

here is a headline from the open court houston chronicle" this morning. -- from the "houston chronicle" this morning. what is the impact for that -- of that for low-income working families? guest: there is a trade-off for the policies put into place, the stimulus policies. and now, we have a as a result of the tax policies that were agreed to at the end of last year. for working families, there is a continuation of benefits that will occur. reasonablere hais discussion, debate out there as to the balance of whether they were better off with the old stimulus policies verses the new tax policies. we are talking hundreds of dollars there.

clearly, the numbers that existed verses those coming into place now, it will offer some benefits. the question we have to ask is are they sufficient. one thing we pointed out in our report is that the introductory continues in this direction. we would argue that the policies have not been sufficient in the past, going back to even when economic times were good. there is an issue as to whether we are doing enough, even as we do some things. host: down, a democrat in maine. -- dan, a democrat in maine. caller: in the interest of full disclosure, everything the republicans hate. i have a union job, a good wage and a good pension. it amazes me like you're a guy in alaska who can sit there and want to take all of the spare money that is out there and give it to the top 1% or 2%, no problem giving them tax cuts, no

problem spending trillions of dollars on useless wars in iraq. but because -- and then you have people that call up and want to blame it on the blacks for being shiftless though goods, which i think is a lot of bunk. sometimes i think your guess would be better served if they sat there and said, look, your rhetoric is crowd. anyway, i hope you do well in your work -- your rhetoric is crap. anyway, hope to do well in your work. it is warfare and the rich are winning hands down. the playing field is slanted in their direction. so much of the population believes that they get what they deserve and deserve what they get, which is owned. -- which is bunk. host: let's go to bob on the independent line in tennessee. caller: as far as the unions,

you only have so many people that can make so much money from each company. if democrats were the want to help the poor, they would start back with the industry. host: what do you mean by that? caller: what i mean by that is quick running the people off. like the guy that with -- but the guy was just saying about taxes. -- like the guy was just sang about taxes. also, the bible says to go to work or do not eat. i believe that 100%. host: let's just talk about the economic argument for giving those that are low-income more than they pay into the system. guest: i do not think we are talking about giving these working families more. we are talking about having work

pay. when someone works a full-time job and continues to work continuously, the idea that they can move up, that they can pursue the american dream. the idea that economic mobility, something this country believes is part of our foundation is real. data has started to show in recent years that economic mobility in this country is not all it's cracked up to be. moving from a lower class to middle class is much more constrained than it used to be. one thing we talk about is the increase in income inequality in working families in our report. and the reality of that income inequality, i think, no surprise to many, given all of the discussion in recent years, is increasing.

in figure three we have a table that shows that the top 20% of working families earners in this country take home almost 50% of the income. that should cause us some cause about the income inequality among some working families. once again, i stress that we are talking about working families here. another thing that would be interesting to note, when we are talking about the top 20%, those folks earning 80 to one under% of the working income for families in america -- 80% to 100% of the working income for families in america, 20% of those families earning above $116,000. somehow we have gotten this notion that $250,000 is middle class.

we are talking at 20 -- about 20% that are at $116,000 or above. host: chesterfield county, virginia. james is an independent there. caller: my problem with some of these comments that are being made is the stereotyping of the differences between blacks and whites. it is more, to me, it is more of a green thing now. which is more of who has and who does not. i may struggling up and coming business owner -- i am a struggling up-and-coming business owner, who lost my job three months ago and now i'm having to go to find a job now. i was trying to start my business with a plan in place. i go off to different conventions, seminars. i talked to eight banks about what i needed to do as far as

getting my plan funded, and when the rubber hits the road and i went to these banks, it was always a situation, well, we cannot do this or that. either way, creating jobs. i'm doing it myself. and it is a viable business. and you can do due diligence in checking the contracts to make sure they are secure. to me, as a black man, i have to be 10 times better than that of anybody else because of the stereotype that is put on me as a minority. guest: james, thank you for your call. you are the perfect example of what we are talking about when we think that public policies need to be more sensitive to, more focused on the plight, the efforts, the ambitions of people like you, working families and working individuals who really are trying to get ahead. i know the difficulty -- we see it story after story in terms of

small businesses being able to bobtained finances. we think that extends across the board. as we look into 2011, there will be much discussion, much debate. significant choices will have been made -- how to be made about our investment. i think you raise a good point. we have got to give more attention to people like you, low-income working families, in making those public policy decisions. host: let's go to justin in roanoke, virginia. justin, are you with us? let's move on to hartle, alabama. greg on the democratic line. caller: i have one question to ask. kauai is no one talking about the correlation between the loss of manufacturing jobs in america and what has happened to the middle class and poor? working people work at jobs all day long that do not pay what

they used to and people wonder why their kids are living with them until they are 50 and there is no opportunity in america. guest: that is an excellent point. it is something that we do raise in our report. the loss of manufacturing jobs -- and i will extend that a little bit further. certainly, manufacturing jobs have been a core basis for what we have relied on in this country for folks to go and earned a family living wage. they do not necessarily have high levels of education to be able to work with their hands and produce things in america. the reality is that those opportunities have diminished. no one of the things that we talk about in this report is that increasingly -- and as you look at figure to in our report, you see the difference between those who have mourned for cute -- education in terms of the unemployment rate -- those that have more education in terms of the unemployment rate is

significant. it is three times, those with their high school degree verses those with a bachelor's degree. the global economy is that more and more workers, individuals are going to have to obtain additional education. have some type of post secondary education, the community college degree, a certificate or credential, but something that is of value in the labour market. one of the key recommendations in our report is that we have to ensure that those families, the workers as well as their children, that they have the ability to access those close secondary institutions and pay for that. -- those post secondary institutions and pay for that. according host: to the report --

who are you recommending these -- making these recommendations to? guest: we are making those recommendations to public policy makers at the federal and state level where appropriate. in this particular a reno, there are some -- in this particular arena is that those resources need to be allocated. one, they are not sufficient to cover all in need, and secondly, they need to be directed to those individuals bleeding high school, the traditional student, if you will. -- those individuals leaving high school, the traditional student, if you will. we need to give them opportunity to access those financial resources to go back to college, community college, and get the skills that will help them move up in the labour force. there are folks who were working with like to be able to go back

to school. those are some of the areas that we care a lot about. host: who are you talking to up on capitol hill? is there a member of congress who has decided to take up legislation? guest: 1 clarification i would like to make as u.s. the question is the working poor families project, we focus on state policies. by and the work that we do at the national levels, -- the work that we do at the national level, we are not advocates. we work in 24 states and we have non-profit groups and in those 24 states who work at the state level. there are significant state policies, state resources to our dedicated to education and training and that is what our initiative focuses on. if host: let's go to south carolina, mike, democratic line. caller: about what he was just talking about, the financial aid for training, i have been unemployed for a while and i would like to be retrained.

unfortunately, i have defaulted on a student loan, which means i'm not eligible for retraining. i cannot give out of my default because i cannot get a job. if the government would put those things in the firm for 18 months or two years or something to give people in my situation a chance to get trained so we can get in a situation to start paying back, that will be helpful. a guest: i hear your point. it is a very good one. it is something i will pass along to my colleagues here in washington who work on those issues associated with defaulted loans. host: bettendorf, iowa, did on the independent line. your next. -- you are next. caller: do you have specifics if a person on social security can be considered poor in your cystic -- statistical categories? guest: no, we would not have that because i would presume

that in your question if someone is on social security, they are probably not working significantly. the key thing with our data is, we focus on families where femme -- where parents are working significantly. the other point i should make is that we are talking about families that have children in the household 18 years and under. that constitutes about 37 million ha working families across the country. that is who we target. we do not look at it on every american, every household or every family. we focus on working families that have children in the household. host: for more information, the website is workingpoorfamil ies.org. next caller. caller: all you are worried about is the color of people's

skin. you have got to stop that. in order to get a loan for a business or contra, you have to be owned by a woman or a minority. people of low-income, of which i am, they get more because they do not pay their taxes. if you have five or six children, you are going to get that credit and not paid in. the middle class, we do not get that. my son's payout double in taxes and do not get it back because they have no dependants. the low-income gets three times what they get because they get houseful of children. host: are you talking about the child tax credit? caller: that plus -- i mean, he keeps saying minorities don't get this or that. in my state, they get the contracts first. if you are a black woman, -- and

i'm not damning them. i'm not meaning that. i know biggest, or whatever. if you are a -- i am no bvigot, or wherever. guest: i'm not sure if we have been focusing on my door is the with the viewer has heard. the largest percentage of low- income working families, just to be clear here, are white working families. that is the largest percentage of any racial or ethnic group. i just wanted to clarify that. host: the "washington post" this morning has an editorial about the republican plans for cut as you go. they call it paygo hijinks.

they do go on to say the expansion of the current income credit and the child tax program are not the same and would continue to have to be paid for with spending cuts. guest: those are very important programs. and those are very important programs because they actually do target low-income working families and assist them in dealing with there's it -- their circumstances in having limited resources. those programs, i believe, we believe in the work that we do, are critical. i understand the need to make trade-offs and there are certainly plenty of candidates

out there that could be used to provide resources that could be cut to enable those programs to continue. and as we say, we know there will be choices that have to be made, that this congress, this administration given the situation, is going to face some tough choices. in that regard, we would say those our priorities and other things are less a priority. host: carolyn in washington d.c., welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you. first, i would like to say happy new year to you. i was really upset when i heard a caller talking about the poor, if you do not work, you do not eat. and he said it was in the bible that he believed that. i would like everyone else to read proverbs 29. it says the righteous considers the cause of the port, but they're not wicked do not regard it. also, proverbs 30: 14.

if he believes the word of god, that he should believe that also. i would also like to say -- please do not cut me off. there was another person who was wide talking about minorities. has she been living in america all her life? it has always been white getting the jobs. minorities are the first to get fired. it is bad all the way around and should not be that way. the other thing i by to say about the port, the poor are the ones who protect this country. the four are the ones who go to war. do you see what i'm saying? -- the poor are the ones who go to war. do you see what i'm saying? not everybody is college material. host: we will take that last

point. trade in school. not everyone is to go to college. how will that help low-income people? guest: we talk about everybody wanting to go to college. the common perception is going to a four-year institution. not everyone is to go to a four- year institution, but most people want to gain the education and skills, occupational skills, if you will, that will enable them to get a good paying job. there are pritchard he's without putting a four-year degree. -- there are good opportunities a four-yeart getting degree. many colleges offer two-year degrees and more important, they offer one-years for tickets, credentials, if you will, that are valued in the labour market -- one-year certificates, credentials, if you will, that are valued in the labour market. host: one more phone call.

go ahead. caller: i want to say something about the taxes because i keep hearing from democrats calling in saying a 35% is not great enough. the corporations are the ones to pay the highest taxes. when the corporations do not pay those taxes, the consumer gets those cost on to them. the editing is, the american dream does not consist of me working my fingers to the bone until the day i die. the american dream for me is becoming a millionaire, doing the right thing, going to school, learning things and doing something with my life. guest: i think that is an important point, that the american dream is about moving up. i mentioned economic mobility earlier. and the families that we are talking about, these 10 million working families, aspire to that american dream of being able to work -- to move up to obtain

economic success and economic security in particular. what we are calling for in our report is the opportunity for those families to do so. host: you mentioned to you that you worked on the state level. the want to assure you this headline from "the boston globe." what is happening on this front? guest: as we talked about earlier, the recession is taking its toll. the one of the issues is that with people losing their jobs, with the transition is taking place in the economy, the ability to care for working families is diminishing. our data shows that it used to be one ire