live it 10:00 a.m. eastern, -- janet napolitano will give a speech at 2:00 p.m. on the state of homeland security. in about 45 minutes, we will discuss the president's call for more spending on infrastructure. at 8:30 eastern, the washington correspondent for " the new york times," will focus on the inquiry commission which is releasing its report this morning. we will be joined by the president of the national academy of engineering to discuss science and math education. "washington journal" ♪

♪ host: the cbo forecast for 2011, the tax-cut package approved by congress and signed by the president will drive the federal deficit to nearly $1.5 trillion this year. that is the headline in "the washington post." it would be one of the largest since the end of world war ii. will start there this morning on the "washington journal." what is your reaction to the headline this morning? we will get your phone calls in just a moment. the numbers are are your screen. here is "the washington post."

"it requires a vote in all 50 state legislatures and would do little to address the current problem. they dismissed a proposal to slash $100 billion from the current budget." you can start dialing in now with your phone calls. what do you make of this? what do you think should be done? what should be cut? social security, medicare, medicaid? this is the story in "the washington post" this morning.

host: atlanta, georgia. greg on the line for democrats.

what do you think of that headline this morning? good morning. i think we lost greg. let's go on to win independence in cranberry, texas. good morning. what do you think? caller: it is really a mess. i will tell you what is going to have to happen. they are going to have to raise taxes. they're going to have to do that. host: what do you think about that? are you opposed to the idea? caller: sure. me and my wife are on social security and mice small retirement. of course we are against that. we have to do something. this country is in real trouble. what are you doing on their three days in a row? don't they let you off? host: they do. caller: that was quick. it is a pleasure.

i do not know how many times -- lately it has not happened when you are on, but a lot of times i will be listening and there are no republicans in the world. there are no republicans calling. i will let the phone rang 25 times and then i'll hang up and try again. nobody answers and i will keep trying. finally, somebody will get busy and answer the phone for republicans. the president wants to freeze spending. astronomical levels. we have this suppose a problem with social security. when we pay double the rate from 1986 to the present -- now you call it an entitlement. many people did not pay anything in. the rest of us were peeing double the rate. now they tell us they have to cut its balance the budget.

some call him slick willie, but i will call him president clinton. he claims of the budget was balanced. they got a shortage because they have to pay out on promises. i think it is about $3 trillion or so, plus interest. they need to cut the levels of spending back to the year of 2006. if they cut spending to the level of 2006, the balance of the budget -- the budget would be closer to balance. the fact that we're blowing this money on silly programs -- even t. boone pickens has given up. host: many have said, when they calculate the numbers, that you do not get to a balanced budget. you are going to have to raise taxes. if there were some sort of

combination -- if the two sides could come together with some kind of combination of spending cuts and tax increases, would you be amenable to that? caller: let's put it this way. the answer is no and the reason is this. back in the 1980's, in the early 1980's, ronald reagan cut the taxes. the democrats promised him -- if you went along with tax increases. they turned around and spent a lot more money. the same thing happened. do you remember george h.w. bush and he said, "read my lips. no new taxes"? as soon as he agreed to the tax increases, the spent more money. host: what about 1994 when bill clinton was in there and they agreed to spending cuts and they were able to raise taxes, as well, and then there was a

balanced budget? caller: no, if you will recall, this excess collection of social security is what balanced the budget. host: thank you. you and others might be interested in robert samuelson 's column in "the washington post" this morning. he says --

host: sarasota, florida. joe on the line for independents. what do you think? caller: how come we are not taxing companies from other countries that sent their products here -- taxing them

more, instead of raising our taxes? they tax us higher than we tax them. host: are talking about tariffs? caller: exactly. we are getting products from them for extremely cheap. to make up for that, we are raising our taxes to make up the difference. how come the game is not fair? politicians do not talk about that. donald trump even talks about that. the products we are getting, they are not getting tax tie enough. when we send something over there, the taxes are extremely high. how come politicians do not talk about that? that is why our jobs are leaving. they can make something for pennies on the dollar, compared to less. -- pennies on the dollar compared to us. host: orleans. surehirley on the line for democrats. caller: they should stop the legal wars and bring our troops

home. they should also tax the corporations who have their headquarters in the islands. why should they not pay income tax on their products? they do not make them in america. they do not pay taxes. in fact, they get tax credits. i really have a bone to pick with you. the gentleman who said you only take democrats and independents -- that's not true. i listened to c-span every day. i get up very early to listen to c-span. yesterday in particular, you had republicans, republicans, independents, republicans, republicans, and every once in awhile, you throw in a democrat. host: let me throw in something. as the host, the person who sits in this chair, we do not answer the phones. we do not control who calls in. the person who does answer the

phone downstairs -- they do their best to balance the phone calls and get a republican, democrat, an independent. it all depends on who calls in. texas, becky on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: yes, they say they are going to cut the medicare programs. one of the most wasted domestic programs is medicaid. there are a lot of healthy young people that are too lazy to work. they're having these babies. i noticed last night -- they can get a free phone. they are trawling tx -- they are and they doks not work. it all adds up in the long run.

i worked hard growing up. host: fox news affiliate in kentucky reports that rand paul wants to cut numerous several programs, including food stamps for the poor to save $500 billion in a single year. a legislative proposal introduced would cut $42 billion from the u.s. department of agriculture's food stamp program. it would eliminate numerous other programs. paul said his proposal would roll back spending to 2008 levels and eliminate what he considers the most wasteful programs. manhattan, pete, on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. you do a great job. i once spoke to a person who is involved in medicaid in

manhattan. she told me that the medicaid recipients are not required to have primary care physicians. it is on a fee basis. they can just go in and get an mri. i asked her how to fix medicaid. she said that obviously they should have primary care doctors. second, attacks the imports. third, another friend, a wall street friend and a china export -- china expert -- i ask when the fed bought $600 billion of u.s. treasurys. he responded that we should have bought another $2 trillion. lastly, my profession -- business liability and worker's compensation insurance. it should be written up in such

a way that businesses in this country do not provide coverage for business liability and worker's compensation to undocumented workers. thank you for c-span. host: a little bit more from the cbo report. "the primary reason for the reversal is the tax cuts president obama negotiated in december. it extended the bush tax cuts through 2012 and cut payroll taxes for every american worker. it also extended emergency unemployment benefits through the end of december."

host: fayetteville, arkansas. brad on the line for independents. you our next. caller: to reduce the deficit, has anybody talked about cutting the tension? host: some republicans have said that should be on the table. what do you think? caller: absolutely. half of the reason we are in

the that is because of this darn war. we went there 10 or 12 years ago and we have not come back. we spent half a trillion dollars every year on the defense budget. we have 750 military bases around the globe. they do not really need to be there. they need to be closed. we could save trillions of dollars if that happens. host: the cbo report is not on the front page of "the new york times" but this headline is. "gop is split as it weighs military cuts." it says i inside the paper -- it says inside the paper that the chairman says he will not support any measures that stretched the forces. rep gibson, a tea party endorsed republican, made it

clear that no part of the pentagon's $550 billion budget was e-mail on -- budget was immune. this is in "the new york times" if you are interested in reading it. host: jonathan, on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. the government math and pretzel logic is making my head hurts. not raising taxes in the suffering economy right now -- somehow they figure this deficit number. if they do not take 75% of our money in taxes, then i could say it would raise the deficit by $3

trillion or four dollars trillion. it does not make any sense. a little history. 10 years ago, i heard a figure that $1 trillion was lost in the pentagon budget in the previous 10 years in the 1990's. just lost. gone. the accounting and bookkeeping of the education department was so bad that it could not be audited. i read an article in 2000. in the three previous years, $37 billion lost due to waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicaid program alone. they have shown themselves to be completely irresponsible with our money. when it comes to the biggest punitive factor -- president obama even alluded to this in his speech the other day. our tax code needs to be reformed. we spent $300 billion to $500

billion per year in compliance costs. even the president's own debt commission said we need to lower the corporate tax rate to as the 23% and eliminate the loopholes and make it more simple. that is what needs to be done. we need to stimulate the economy, dropped unemployment, expand and grow the economy, despite what paul krugman says. every time it has been done, the economy grew and revenues increased to the government. host: "the wall street journal" has an interview with treasury secretary geithner this morning on the plan on the way forward. the treasury secretary was asked, given the deficit, what is the point of going through all this if it does not raise revenue to reduce the deficit? he said there is been a broad substantial reduction in the

corporate tax rate outside the united states. host: that is what he answered in "the wall street journal." he was also asked -- president was asked about individual income taxes. was that as high as a priority? he said --

host: memphis, tennessee. larry on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to say a comment about the budget. the republicans have never balanced the budget. the balanced budget act was passed without one republican vote. i'm tired of the republicans calling in and lying. one republican voted for it in 1993. when george bush was president of the united states, they said a deficit was a good thing. they said jobs overseas was a good thing. now all the sudden the news -- if such a bad thing. when they were in office, the deficit was a good thing. we could tax the rich and corporations. when george bush was in office, corporations paid nothing and

most rich people paid nothing. this country does not care about poor people. the poor people need to rise up and we need all new officials up there. obama in his state of the union address did not mention poor people onetime. host: in "the washington post" roberts and nelson said -- robert samuelson said -- host: lancaster, ohio. bob on the line for independents. you our next. caller: good morning. i'm a single father. i have custody of my son --

since he was 6 years old. i'm raising him like a father is supposed to do without his mother. i get $674. that is my income. when i was in the homeless shelter, i was getting $325 in food stamps. we have to raise taxes. this country needs to get out of a war. we cannot finance two wars at the same time. i voted for obama. i'm very disappointed in obama. i'm very disappointed in that man. he talks about everybody has to make sacrifices. his family does not do it sacrifices. eating ice cream cones, going to hawaii on vacation and stuff -- he is a leader. he should set an example and to the sacrifices, just like we have to do.

worry about putting food on your table. the last two weeks of the month, you struggle. we are going to have to do something. we have to get out of the war. we have to quit sending money overseas to feed them. we have to worry about america first. host: that was bob, an independent in lancaster, ohio. dave, a republican in michigan. caller: i have two brief points to make. when the president from china came over, he came over in a regular airplane and did not like fancy. he just came over and landed and paid his business. when our president went over, a gazillion dollars of airplanes and ships and troops and everything. the fellow coming over year flying coach -- he is the one

that is lending us money. the article about social security -- a microcosm example of taking our pension money and putting it into the general funds. that was done by denny mcclain in the 1970's. he won 30 ball games. he ended up in prison for taking the pension fund money of his workers and putting it in a general fund to save his company. congressmen who did that are guilty of a crime. that's what the band should say, not that we are -- not that is our tough luck. had that money been put in treasury bonds, collecting interest, it would be more than enough to pay our pensions without a problem. host: a little bit more from "the new york times" story about the gop split over military cuts. it says that the committee is concerned and has quietly been meeting with the new members,

those that it would like to see the pentagon budget on the table. host: georgia, roy, a democrat caller. go ahead. caller: hi. how're you doing? host: good morning. i'm going to put you on hold. you have to turn down your television. milwaukee, wisconsin. chuck,. an. good morning. caller: first of all, if anybody -- i have been watching c-span for many years and i listen to other talk shows. the biggest problem i see right now is that we have been so

divided and conquered so many times that it is unbelievable. we cannot get along on anything. if we took all 350 of us people and said no to all this malarkey -- just filed bankruptcy. tomorrow, start all over again. plain and simple. we're never going to pay that back. we keep hearing that every day that this is a solution. stop. tomorrow, start all over again. host: a little bit more about the cbo report in "the new york times." w

"a sharp reduction in medicare payment rates to doctors and other health-care providers that would kick in at the end of 2011, but that congress has routinely stepped in to avert, and a patch for the alternative minimum tax that prevents it from hitting millions of more families that is also due to expire at the end of 2011, but congress has consistently renewed." whites borough, texas. kevin on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm glad you are here three times per week do you take a lot more calls than anybody else. on social security, my father in 1982 decided he was going to begin collecting social security.

he put it in an investment account and there's a lot of money in it now. he passed away a long time ago. there's three-quarters of $1 million in there. it has only been since 1983. entitlements are a big problem. for medicare and medicaid -- at least medicaid -- their pensions should be going to some regional centers that are just for those people that are on medicare and medicaid. the other thing is, we really just need to be energy independent. we need to go all out and get everything we can out of the ground. we send most of our money overseas to buy foreign oil. that is what i have. host: kevin, a republican in

texas. here is "the washington times" this morning. "more than $600 million could be saved by ending the system. it passed in a239-160 vote. it's just a recognition of how broken the system has become, particularly after barack obama reversed a campaign pledge and opted out of the primary and general election matching funds in 2008." that is a statement put out by the administration. our question this morning about the cbo report, here is "the

financial times." they say the address was not the time to go into the details of fiscal policy, but it was a moment to make long-term fiscal control the administration's overriding priority and explain to the country what this means in practice. fiscalma's own commission has provided a plan. the president mentioned it briefly, yet failed to endorse or say what he proposes instead. fort myers, florida. democratic caller, good morning. i think we have the wrong line. we will go to a republican in massachusetts. go ahead. caller: yes, i wanted to ask a question. i'm on social security. i hear all this noise about them wanting to cut our benefits and so forth and the pay-as-you-go

program and so forth. i see that the average pay of a government employee is about twice of that of an american. they get all kinds of benefits. they are not part of this health-care program. we need to cut their benefits. why do they think they are better than the rest of us? i would like for somebody to come on and say how much money is committed to the retirement for the government employees and their medical coverage. let's make some cuts in that. stop treating those people as somehow a royalty which are exempt from the same cuts that we're going to have to take. host: 4 myers, florida. we will go to repnee on the line for democrats. caller: 1, i'm in favor of

raising the terror spree two, i am in favor of reducing the military -- i am in favor of raising the tariffs. i am in favor of reducing the military. i think they should have centers for people who are on medicare and medicaid. i am a former federal employee. i was paid very well. the benefits were good. i was also a state employee. as a state employee, we did have good health benefits, but we were not paid like people normally think. even though i was a full-time employee, i lived in a hud housing complex. my two neighbors lived for the state also. do not complain that the state employees make a lot of money. they do not. their retirement stinks.

i do not know. i just do not think they should reduce the social security or the medicaid. host: an independent in new york. what are your thoughts? good morning. caller: good morning. i want to throw a little philosophy into this. about 3000 or four thousand years ago, the ancient greeks had a little legend. at the end of the legend, the god of death died. therefore, nothing could die in a situation. as a result of nobody diene and nothing able to die, the world was thrown into turmoil and they had to revive the god of death to allow things to happen. we do everything in the society

to try to keep entitlements going forever and ever. this is one of the great problems with social security and its entire design. no politician is willing to deal with cutting down -- even suggesting the idea that perhaps people cannot continue to live forever and allow any solution to the problem. host: on a lighter note, even presidents get caught in winter storms. here is the associated press. the usa today story this morning about dennis kucinich, who is suing a congressional cafeteria

for dental damage. also this morning is the front page of "the baltimore sun." a baltimore police officer is suing, saying he was forced to president obama's visit. according to a $17 million lawsuit, the officer who is now retired, filed in baltimore. grainger, indiana. robert on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. wouldn't you say the top story yesterday would have been the deficit and the out of balance on social security?

show me where it is on "the new york times" front page. that was incredible newspaper. it is just an arm of the democratic party. host: the cbo the story the? caller: yes. is not on the front page. caller: does that tell you something? host: it is on the front page of most of the newspapers. it is on "the new york times" page a19. here is "the washington times." "the wall street journal" -- new york, janet on the line for democrats. good morning.

caller: we the people in america need to look at it. it is not about democrats and republicans. it's about common sense. we've not had a balanced budget for 10 years. there are lots of things that have to be done. we need to look at it as people and not so much fragmented. yes, there is waste, fraud, and abuse that needs to be corrected. there's a situation where we are not taxing companies out of our country. tariffs have to be increased. this is an issue that we have to stop blaming and stop trying to fragment and unite as a people in this country. we have to understand that obama is not the reason that all this is happening. we've had a deficit for many years. we're always glad to have a deficit.

we can do better. we must do better. everybody has to be open. there has to be some compromises. government programs, yes, have to be cut. there's a lot of waste and abuse. the rich have to be taxed more. those who have more have to pay more. they have the resources. they will help drive this country. host: what if that is not enough? taxing two% of americans, what if that is not enough to add up to a balanced budget? are you willing to pay more in taxes? caller: yes, we all have to do all we have to do. i have two kids in college. i am middle class. if they tell me i have to pay more, i have to pay more. we all have to do our part. everybody. host: here is "the wall street journal" this morning.

proposals for cuts include the -- \ new jersey, michael, in independent -- michael, an independent. caller: all the infighting is doing nothing but costing us more money. two, a clarification to the public. where do they want to go? where do they want to make cuts? after they make cuts, they have to decide where they're going to

consolidate. there are 20 different organizations that do the same thing everywhere. state, local, federal level. get it down to a basic group. after that, look at the military budget, which is extreme. we're paying more money in the military then -- we would cover our deficit in half a decade if we eliminated our military budget. host: many callers bring up the pay for lawmakers on capitol hill. here is "the wall street journal." let's go to cathedral city, california. gary on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: did anybody take economics out there and the

government? the first thing i learned when i went to college was that if you lose your manufacturing base -- you have to understand that the people of the united states pay the bills. they pay the taxes. this is why we have a problem with social security and everything else. two, we need to stop a corporations from sending all of our jobs offshore. if we do not employ the u.s. people, you are never going to collect the revenues needed to run this country. that's all i have to say. host: last phone call. sacramento, california. arnold on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i just want to tell people -- if war is costing us so much money, peace can make us this money back. that's all i want to say. focus on good will.

host: we are going to keep talking about spending with the president and ceo of freedomworks, the tea party group headed by matt kibbe. after that, we will take a look at this question. what caused the financial crisis? we'll talk about that with sewll chan of "the new york times." we will be right back. ♪ ♪ question 9/11 redefined the presidency. it made it clear that my most important job is to protect the country. i made a lot of controversial decisions to do that. many of which i described in the book. if i had to do them over again,

i would do them over again. >> george bush talks about his best selling memoir with students from southern methodist university. >> this weekend on c-span3, we will tour the home of frederick douglass. jerry jones tells of the aggressive nabal the policy of woodrow wilson. from the nixon foundation, a focus on daniel patrick moynihan. his career spanned four presidential administrations. experience american history tv on c-span3. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. tv ons weekend on book c-span2 -- after 10 years, at

the cnn national security analyst looks at the longest war. he is interviewed by max boot. also, david eisenhower on the continuing growth of the military-industrial complex. edward mclaughlin on president obama's first campaign. sign up to get our schedules e- mailed directly to your in box. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i want to welcome back matt kibbe, freedomworks president and ceo. let's begin with "the washington times." guest: it's a shocking number, $1.5 trillion. longer-term, it is $14 trillion in national debt. it's a combination of a bad economy and way too much spending.

we are spending too much money we do not have. the federal government is getting involved in too many things. those are the drivers of the deficit. host: what does freedomworks want done? guest: we need to look at every program in the federal government and cut spending. there is a lot of agencies that just do not make sense in this kind of an economic crisis. we also need to look at entitlements. entitlements have been the elephant in the rome. both parties have been willing to ignore the massive growth in medicare and medicaid. it's all called mandatory spending. host: does the republican study committee's proposal for $2.5 trillion in cuts over the next decade go far enough? guest: i think it's a very substantial proposal to we have to see what paul ryan proposes.

rand paul has proposed half of 1 trillion dollars -- hald of $1 trillion this year alone. host: paul ryan has said it is only feasible this year to cut about $60 billion this year. guest: i think they need to go further than that. i think there's a lot of pressure inside congress to not cut spending. nobody likes to make tough choices. this is not a democrat versus republican problem. i would say it is the establishment versus reformer problem. paul ryan is getting a lot of pressure from his own members.

that is what the tea party is here for. host: how will you hold paul ryan and john boehner accountable? if $60 billion is the number they get to this year, what will happen? guest: it is not just that number. that was their initial number to cut spending. we are really looking at the total number that comes out of the house budget resolution, which will probably happen by april 15. it will probably happen in conjunction with the extension of the debt limit. we have a good short-term measure of where republicans are going to be. host: what are you looking for? guest: i'm looking for something that gets us to a balanced budget in 10 years. i'm looking for immediate cuts. we would like to see $100 billion, which is what republicans originally promised. more importantly, i would like to see the agency eliminations that guarantee that three years from now we have not promised

long-term cuts and short-term increases. again, that is the typical budget game. host: let me go back to my question. if you want $100 billion and they just give you $60 billion, how will you hold them accountable? guest: we will look at who votes for that. $100 billion in spending cuts does not solve the problem. is an initial gesture towards fiscal responsibility. it is an important one. if, for instance, the only come up with $60 billion in the standalone budget cutting measure but they are very bold in their budget resolution and offer substantive reforms and pass them, i would say that's a win-win. we will not know. can set out a goal of $100 billion, which is their number, but it's more important to see what they do with. host: a. robert samuelson talks about the proposal of making $2.5 trillion

in cuts over the next decade. guest: there are two sides of this equation. one of the reasons that we have such a massive deficit and debt right now is the state of the economy. when the economy is shrinking and jobs are getting destroyed, people are not paying into the revenue base. you have had a declining revenue base because of the economy and a massive increase in spending -- not starting with the obama stimulus plan. it certainly started in the bush administration. there has been a massive ramping up. that is the gap. what you have to do, and the reason we are sobel on the spending side is that we

believe there's so much government spending right now and so much debt and so much government involvement in things that it is a fiscal drag on drop -- fiscal drag on job creation. we fundamentally disagree with the notion that more government spending can be the job creator in this country. host: was the tax cut package approved by the president a mistake? guest: no. i think it was a central. if you had allowed a massive tax increase with 9.4% unemployment, you would have stopped any hope for economic recovery. again, you have to think about this in a. dynamic. -- again, you have to think about this in a dynamic sense. we do not always pay is in and out and spend from that. it creates on who is creating jobs and who is paying taxes. we need people to be working in order to balance the budget. host: this is more from robert

samuelson's column this morning. he writes this. it would exist even as the economies were at full employment. guest: i'm not sure i agree with that. if you look at what has happened over the last couple of years, there are two things we could go after in terms of spending blessing quite obvious. first, you could reduce the discretionary spending baseline back to where it was before we had this massive spending spree. you could go back to 2008. you could go back to 2006. when president obama proposes freezing discretionary spending, he is proposing

freezing it at that very high level post stimulus, the $1 trillion of extra money. you have to go back to where we were. that is not a draconian cut. that fact to the historical base line that everybody agreed with. the other thing you have to look at is obamacare. there's $1.3 trillion of spending included in obamacare. why would we go after reforms and other entitlements when we just created massive new entitlements that have not taken effect yet? if you're willing to talk about tough spending cuts, let's go after the things that we haven't really done yet. that's one thing that some of the budget cutters are ignoring when they go after other programs. we should have a robust conversation about which functions of government our most important. host: does freedomworks believe the pentagon budget is on the table? guest: yes. host: let's go to the phone calls. a republican in kansas. go ahead.

caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i do not know how we get out of this tangled mess. maybe you have some things you should -- you could tell us. in kansas, we just got a very small deficit compared to what we have nationally. half of $1 billion. government came in and decided he was going to start making cuts. locally, we have an arts council. the governor proposed that we privatize that. he wanted to cut medicaid spending and education spending, or at least off the rate of increase. you know what happened? the arts council locally said, what are the artists going to do? they're all going to starve. the mental health center said -- we have long lines and all that stuff. half the deficit in kansas

accrues to medicaid spending -- of that, i think $200 million for drugs for people who are kind of wondering the kansas countryside. how do we solve this problem? we are right at the edge of this thing. i do not know. . i'm. guest: it's a problem that's going on in virtually all of the 50 states. there are a few exceptions. the problem in state budgeting is like the federal budgeting problem. in good times, when revenues are coming into the treasury, they propose new programs and a ratchet up the baseline. all the sudden, the economy fails and you have a huge gap between spending and revenues. that is what is going on in kansas. the only people that have typically shown up in the budget base have been constituencies, special- interest that wants something

from government. i think the solution is to change the dynamics so that real people who pay taxes and pay their own bills and sit down of the kitchen table and balance their own budgets when their income declines -- these are the people who need to show up. i believe that's essentially what the tea party is. it's a constituency for fiscal responsibility that's not looking for some special handout from the government or some special programs or special exemption. they just want the government to live within its means just like the rest of us have to. host: this is "the new york times" business section this morning. moody's investor service has begun to recalculate the state debt burden in a way that includes unfunded pensions. states do not show their pension obligations on their audited financial statements. if you look on your screen, there's a graphic that shows that when pension obligations

for state employees are included, total debt for many states rises significantly. guest: i'm glad they're doing that, but it is going to create a real fiscal crisis. it's unconscionable that at the state level or the federal level we do not put these unfunded obligations on the books. at the federal level, it's much worse. we are about to have this crisis because of state pension funds. at the federal level, we have over $1 trillion in unfunded liabilities primarily driven by medicare, medicaid, and to a lesser extent social security. these are the mandatory programs that grow automatically, regardless of our ability to pay. you have a demographic problem. fewer people are paying into programs that will have to pay more and more money. if you are in the private sector and you did your books that way, you would be in jail. the federal and state governments get away with that. we need to put everything on the table so people understand the severity of the challenge. host: maine, helen on the line

for democrats. caller: good morning. i'm calling as a brother old nurse. i remember a time when we took care of people called patients. in recent years, we began to call them customers. the concept of this country being an uber business model concerns me. we have too many so-called businesses taking on the corpses of what we used to call patients. we have gotten away from the whole idea of taking care of patients. there are many businesses who have nothing to do with patients with -- who have nothing to do with the direct patient care. that has been the driver in the health care costs. i second, it has to do with looking at the pentagon.

i think we need to reload that the whole concept of our military. we've talked a lot about having discussions or conversations. i think you're overdue -- i think we are overdue about having a conversation about the real role of america in the real world. i think we have far too many military bases. i think our military pension system needs to be looked at. our veterans pension system needs to be looked at. i do not think it is conducive to a healthy reentry into employment. there are a lot of issues we need to look at. i will take your comments off the air. thank you. guest: let me tackle the first question. i generally agree on your second point about defense. i do think you need to look at everything and assess what makes sense and what we can't afford.

>> that is what we are proposing. on health care, the real problem has been the employer, or the federal government. there is always someone in the middle with an interest other than the patient compel, other than the doctor could tell. when we are proposing is a direct relationship where they could make those financial decisions for themselves, and whenever you have a third-party making that decision, if you will get a sub-optimal results, spending you do not need, and you do not take care of the patients first. i agree with you, perhaps not in the way you intended, but i think the real solution is getting these middlemen out of the way. host: that is not part of the proposal put forth by house speaker john boehner when it comes to an alternative plan. this is a story in "national journal."

what the speaker has proposed to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. expand health savings accounts, and take on tort reform. the cbo says that would add just 3 million americans to the insured. it said the proposal constitutes nearly 80% of private-sector premiums. guest: what i think those proposals are are basically republican ideas, most of which are pretty good, that have been around for some time. what we need to do, both republicans and democrats, is look at a fundamentally new approach that really allows patients to control their own

dollars, their own decisions. you do not want a third party that does not know you making those decisions for you. health savings accounts are a step in that direction. i think you will see coming from outside groups like the tea party is something bigger when it comes to the replace part of the repeal and replaced. host: is the road map for america part of that? guest: yes. host: would you like to see endorsed tea party candidates get behind the plan? guest: yes. i would say that if you do not like the plan, tell us how you will get there.

the game we play in washington too often is that the few that put out a good idea, even if it is a wrong idea, the entire establishment goes after that. they stand back and let the leader get killed by all of the interests. that is what we will insist on. if you do not like the idea, and that is fine, but propose another one. host: karen, on the republican line. caller: the tea party was supposed to die after the tax they. then there was the fourth of july tea party. we could go on from there. the tea party, there really is no tea party, but the tea party people seem to be getting stronger. we would know that here, in virginia. i am wondering, and we now have

the spending, what would it be like if we did not have the tea party? guest: without this massive constituency that rose up two years ago, we would be in a much more dire situation, not because the actual numbers have changed. what we have changed is the incentive structure. we brought in this question class. it is guys like senator rand paul, participants in the senate t. caucus. what we need to do is make sure that all of the community uprising we saw in the movement now translates into specific constituent support for specific proposals to cut the budget, cut spending, and take on government reform. those people do not typically show up in this process.

host: here is the headline in "the usa today." the first meeting is scheduled for this morning. host: what is your reaction? guest: it is a good question, and it is a debate that has gone on. how do you best represent what is essentially a decentralized leader-less movement? i do not usually quote chairman

mao, but i just did. you have to let people organize the way they want to. creating a caucus does not undermine that decentralized ketose, as long as they did not say they are in charge. host: here is an e-mail from joan in vermont. she says i listened to the report yesterday about the budget, and they said a big reason for the deficit going up was due to the extension of the bush era tax cuts. guest: right. if you look at the world in a static way, you could say that if we raise a little bit more taxes, and cut a little bit of spending, you could get there, and cbo quite often uses a static world view which sometimes turns out to be horribly wrong. the classic example of

government bean counters getting a spending estimate from was medicare. they were off by 900%. one of the main reasons we have this huge fiscal problem is mistakes like that, where they do not look at human behavior and what happens when you change policy. if you raise taxes, particularly marginal income tax rates, you change behavior. the investments you might have made this year, you will put off until a later time, or just off -- shift off's your business can accommodate that. host: what about the deficit commission? that had republicans and democrats. if they came up with a proposal. they said you had to have a combination of the two -- cut spending, and get rid of tax expenditures. maybe do not raise taxes, but if you get rid of the mortgage

interest deduction, and the health care tax reduction, if you get rid of those things, simplify the tax code, and then maybe raise taxes for people, you might get there. what about that? guest:, one of the best reforms of our health-care system is to treat plans the same. right now, there is a huge bias that favors the employer plans. i support fixing that problem. i support getting rid of all tax loopholes. it should be done in the context of tax reform. there were a lot of good ideas in that commission. you notice the president is not that enthusiastic about the results. the fatal flaw with the proposal is that if you look at total revenue as a percentage of gdp under their plan, the way they balance the budget is by ratcheting up total taxes in a historical the unprecedented way. if you could do that, but i

think you do more our economy to -- and doom our economy for quite some time. caller: let me explain that i consider myself a ross perot-ian in my politics. i believe in truth, facts, and results. i disliked liberals. their way to jenner's with somebody else's money. i equally hate conservatives because they are liars and thieves. let me explain something you have yet to say. the reason for the deficit is not because of spending. it never was. 25 years of tax cutting put us where we are. in 1986, they said if we continue on this trend, which will be in the trillion dollars in deficits. ross perot said you could stand

-- stack $1,000,000,001 bills on top of each other, and you could not see the top. forget about trillion. when i see -- tea baggers talked -- you did not know what you're talking about. you make it up as you go along. host: explain how -- explained growth? guest: was working on the budget committee. the proposed a series of tax cuts and spending cuts in in 1992, 1993, in 1994. we had a recession and what was hysterically -- and historically high deficit. the result, with of that and the

massive new growth in spending restraint, revenues were able to grow up to the place that we held spending too, if you had budgets and budget surpluses for some years afterwards. that is all we are talking about. it is not enough to just raise taxes. you this incentivize people. if you tax capital, you get less capital, tax waiver, less labor, tax investment, less investments -- this is economics 101. you have to find a place where the burden is not so high that they decide to do something else. host: matt kibbe is the president and ceo of freedomworks. he serves as chief of staff and house budget committee says it for representative dan miller.

here is an e-mail from steve in the illinois. cutting back is a good idea, but what sector will create jobs? guest: it is presumptuous for any individual, whether you are the president or the head of freedomworks. how could we possibly know how the private sector is going to expand and grow? i think it is dangerous whenever you have some bureaucrat in washington, d.c., say we should be involved in green jobs because that is the future of the economy. we do not know. the purpose of a private economy is that you get a multitude of individuals lying for the best idea rigidifying for the best idea. whenever you -- been vying for the best idea.

if you get it wrong, not only did you get it wrong, but he stopped the guy who would have gotten it wrought -- right, from getting it right. host: paul, the democratic line in detroit. good morning. caller: i was wondering, where people as like-minded and during the bush years? spending was out of control then. i wonder where you were when they belt of the banks who messed up all of the money -- bail out of the banks, last of all of the money. they should have given the people and the money. the people would have paid off the sub-prime loan spread to many politicians are in bed with large corporations. insurance companies are allowed to run rampant over people. when they give you a policy,

they do not have to live up to that policy. i'm going through that right now myself. guest: it is a great question. i get that all the time. where we were was fighting with republicans. we were in opposition from day one against the tarp, wall street bailout that was both president bush, speaker nancy pelosi, majority leader harry reid, and all, by the way, it was candidate barack obama, all of whom endorsed the massive bailout. go back. check out our website. we were there from day one. this was the seating of the tea party movement today -- the frustration with republicans and democrats spending money we did not have. we were trying to get an anti- year mark crusader fighting against republican year marks.

he is now on the appropriations committee, looking to make sure appropriators to not go back to their old ways. host: norman, okla., karen on the republican line. caller: thank you for c-span. it is always funny when the democrats called in. they dodd the people that are working -- they dog and the people that are working. do they think there is free lunch? freed medicaid? that is not free. people work. we take care of our poor people. republicans care about people. we are the ones that pay for all of that. we just want them to put out an effort on getting out and doing

something themselves. we are tired of paying people -- for people that do not pay for themselves. you cannot afford all of those kids, do not have them. guest: i think when i have discovered spending the last two years with tea party activists is a real awakening of a basic american value -- hard work, on this relationship with the government, pay your taxes. there is a self reliance that defines us as a movement. we believe in freedom. we believe in limited government. as you go through the crowds, you discover that most americans, whether they be disaffected republicans, independent, libertarians, we are all on that page. that is what binds us. host: this from the associated press yesterday.

guest: those are obvious points that we made during the debate. you just have to look at history, and house cbo has scored government health-care programs before -- medicaid, medicare -- the growth has been literally almost tenfold what they predicted. the problem is, you have a constrained budget. you will never have enough money to pay out the benefits that people would want if the benefits are free. you have increased demand, constraint cost. that is what creates these problems in government-run programs. on the spending side, all of the savings they used to supposedly

paid for obama-care were part more -- primarily phony stuff. it is the budget game that both democrats and republicans have played in the past. the idea that we will cut medicare, which is currently facing a massive unfunded liability, to create a new program and the primary pay was cutting medicare -- it is just not going to happen that way. it is not honest to do with that way. if there are taxes, all sorts of stuff that do not work. it was the worst type of political bargaining to get the last votes. it is not rationally- constructed. host: democrat, of virginia. caller: the deficit is not a big -- as big a problem as the republicans and the tea party is trying to make. i find it amazing that the

republican party is trying to fix the deficit on the backs of poor people. the republican and the tea party is -- i am not being a racist, but this is a fact. they are just a group of white people who are faster becoming a minority in this country. host: let's get a response to that charge. guest: i suggest you ask him scott that story. he was a difficult republican primary. he is an african-american, and he beat strom thurmond's son in south carolina. i have never been able to square that with the ridiculous charges that we are somehow racist. if i have been from thousands of tea party is, and i can tell you we have one of everybody at a tea party. black, white, jewish, christian

-- fill in the blank. we even allow vegetarians in. host: republicans line. caller: i wanted to comment on the frivolous lawsuit about someone having to shave. i think these things can be mediated out of court. maybe some antibiotic cream, and a good, quality raiser, and some good, sensitive shaving cream. host: democratic line, cincinnati. go ahead. caller: my concern is not for myself or other adults. we made our bed. we have to sleep in that. my concern is for the children. we are talking about cutting out, especially deep less that

their family has, the less opportunity they have. i want to see opportunity increase because they deserve better in the country and the world. if we are going to start making these cuts, i want a promise. we pay the most per child for our schools, and but i want to know how you will improve the educational system if you start making cuts. guest: i agree with you 1000%. this fight is about our children and our grandchildren. we need to get our fiscal house in order because we are essentially spending their money. they have not taken to the work force. i think we agree on that. on education, there is an interesting test. speaker john boehner has proposed restoring the voucher program for d.c. kids in

washington, a program was allowed to expire under president obama. i live in a d.c.. our schools are the worst in the country. we spend a lot of money, and the kids do not get the education they have all right to. we need to fix that. the key is to put parents in charge of education instead of some bureaucrat. if the idea that someone in washington, d.c., of knows best what is for your child in california, that strikes me as a surrogate parent host: -- as an absurd. host: republican line. caller: i might have missed it, but how did matt kibbe get into freedomworks? as far as budget cuts, i say

foreign aid all of the way. guest: i started off studied economics in college. i came to the d.c. area to go to george mason university. our organization was literally born out of the economics department f george mason in 1984 -- at george mason in 1984. we have been fighting this fight for all long time. it was always our mission to get more citizens involved. that is why we existed. the tea party, in a sense was a dream come true. i forgot the second question. host: i did, to. andy, houston, texas. caller: the reason i am calling it is that i hear this all about cutting.

they keep on saying obama. you, too, lady. you keep saying obama-care. host: i do not say obama-care. go ahead. what is your question? caller: i worked all my life. i've paid social security benefits. everything comes out of my check. this is my money. this is in houston. they have all of the people that do not have insurance and they go to charity hospitals said -- hospitals. i have insurance until i retired. i have insurance that i paid into. i did not take any kind of charity. it would be great to do that caught so, -- to do that, so i am asking him what he is talking

about when they say they want to cut the poor people. the rich people, that is what our money is for host. host: i do -- let's get a response. guest: i do call the obama-care. one thing you mentioned is the 0 bit -- the biggest misnomer about obama-care is that it cuts out big insurance. they were at the table from day one. they got, from obama-care, what i think is the most egregious proposal -- and individual mandates that requires you to buy insurance whether or not you need it, what it, or afford it. and, by the way, it will tell you which insurance you should buy, and there are a lot of americans that can not afford the mandate.

if you do not comply, you are fined. that, to be, is essentially a tax. that is a boon to big insurance. we are using the federal government to force all americans to buy a product produced by the private sector and the street. host:, our producer remember the second question from the caller, referring to foreign aid to tackle the deficit. guest: i have one particular obsession with foreign aid. currently, our funding for the international monetary fund, the imf, which represents 17% of the total ims budget is currently being used to bail out bankrupt countries like ireland, and these various european countries. greece, spain is coming up next. to me, it strikes me that borrowing money in the united states to put into the imf to

bail out another country is the definition of insanity. american taxpayers should not be bailing out foreign countries. timothy geithner has the no power over that. everyone -- veto power over that. everyone should call the treasury department and insist will stop using taxpayer money to bear all the bailout foreign countries. -- to bail out foreign countries. caller: i agree that our government has abused their power. i also think it is the people, too. we should take some blame. there are too many luxuries, whether it be a cell phone, or a computer. i think people need to change themselves, too. the government is guilty. they should be thrown in jail,

most of them, but we are guilty, too. guest: i agree with that, but the difference is families do ultimately have to face the budget challenging -- in the budget balancing challenge. no one is there to bail them out. there is another failure that we all take a little bit of responsibility for, and that is for showing up in the political process. if you let special interest come to washington, d.c., and insist we do not cut this, do not cut that, increase subsidies for sugar or any other program that gets all of these special benefits, which are failing as citizens. the founders expected us to be vigilant and to participate in the process. again, this is the tea party ethos. we decided it was not on not to complain about the government.

we need to show what and make a difference. host: here is an e-mail that says will you ask about freedomworks funding? guest: we have never taken any money from about koch brothers. our funding comes primarily from individuals. so we have $40,000 all across the country. we get $5 checks from tea party members that support things like our march on washington. host: are those associated with corporations or wealthy individuals? guest: our corporate funding is maybe 5% of our total budget host: i saw a story last week that tea party groups are opposed to the general electric ceo being tapped to serve as the

head of the council on jobs. guest: ge is the poster child for everything that frustrates us. you could try to serve consumer needs by creating better products, or you could come to washington, d.c., and try to get a favor, of regulation that hurts competitors, or a bailout. gmc has done all of these things. when you hear the president talk about -- ge has done all of these things. when you hear the president talk about green jobs, and put jeff immelt in charge of competition, it is a fundamentally wrong way to go about it. we do not believe corporations should be in bed with the government. ge has made that mistake. the taxpayers are paying the bill for these bad experiments.

host: matt kibbe, with freedomworks, thank you. coming up, we will turn our attention to the financial crisis inquiry commission. we will cover their final report. go to our web site for more information. there appears to be dissent on the republican side of that bipartisan commission. when will talk about that more with sewell chan of the "the new york times." then, we will look at education in this country, something president obama talked about in the state of the union address. first, a news update. >> it is 31 past the hour. the color-coded warning system will be phased out this week. janet napolitano holds a news conference this morning. you can hear them later on c- span radio. the pentagon rolls out a three- month plan to train forces on the new law to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

full a implementation of the law could begin later this summer. once the training is complete, the president and military advisers must certify that lifting the ban will not hurt troops ability to fight. robert ford, speaking earlier today, says washington is committed to improving the country's relationship with -- president obama directly appointed mr. ford last month after his nomination had been blocked in the senate. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> listen to the historic supreme court cases on c-span radio. saturday, the court considers copyright and ownership. >> at the inception of the relationship, james earl reid

was an independent contractor. >> listen to the argument on c- span radio. listen online at c-span radio.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: sewell chan wrote the story yesterday "the new york times." what will this it today when they issue the report? guest: it casts a very broad not of blame. it accuses regulators of falling down on the job. it accuses wall street banks of taking too many risks, to foolishly, and corporate executives and directors of mismanaging, and been incompetent. host: there is this in "the wall

street journal caracol -- journal." they say they dissent with what the report will say. why? guest: the commission was not able to reach a consensus. the majority of the report is the democratic view point. the four republicans have two separate dissent. three of them wrote one dissent, and the fourth wrote another. the minority dissent that you refer to, is not 180 degrees different, but it's as the main report is too broad, too many causes, confuses cause and effect, says too much, and these republicans have said factors that they think caused the crisis.

one way of thinking about the disagreement is they think they are pointing to more structural forces that we could get into that helped create the conditions for the crisis. that is not like the democrats to name names, and are a little bit more critical of the individual failures. host: what will be the impact of this division? gee, i think it makes a harder for the report to have the type -- guest: i think it makes it harder for the reports umph that the authors could hope for. host: let's start with the majority opinion. they name names. who will be made? guest: alan greenspan. they sit under his leadership the federal reserve failed to promulgate mortgage lending set -- standards. they could have cracked down on the screen of risky mortgages that went into the pipeline in the early 2000's. they may many corporate

executives. they named the bush administration and treasury secretary hank paulson, who handled the bailout, saying that the bush of administration handle the inconsistently. so they do not say it should not have happened, but they say that bailing out bear stearns, freddie mac and fannie mae, and not believe out lehman brothers, treated uncertainty and panic. host: the current secretary timothy geithner was working with hank paulson. does he get the blame? guest: he gets a little bit of the blame. the new york fed was not the primary regulator for those institutions. even ben bernanke, what the time of the crisis was federal reserve chairman, and still is far, he comes under blame. as late as 2007, he was saying the sub-prime crisis could be

contained. host: what about congress? guest: they come in for blame to the extent that it passed the report. among other flaws that the report finds is that 2000 law that modernized commodities trading, and specifically exempted over-the-counter derivatives from being regulated by the federal government. that was passed by congress under president clinton. host: what about fannie and freddie? guest: they come in to blame, but they are less blamed the and some republicans would like. the report says that they contributed to the pressures in the system, but were not the primary cause. this finding, in particular, is likely to aid their conservative republicans who think that government housing policy, and

the use of these two government- backed, but the extensively private entities to support the mortgage market was a major part of the factor. host: is that what they are are doing today? guest: there are less focused on fannie and freddie than the last republican. he has his own 99-page dissent upset government housing policy and fannie and freddie. host: what do these republicans are you? what are they saying? guest: beige book housing bubbles. they look at macro-economic forces that are internationally and -- that are international. capital needed a place to go. the u.s. headed deep, liquid financial markets with mortgage- backed securities. money came crashing into the united states, and helped build up this bubble.

that imbalance of those countries having a trade surplus, and our country been an over-consumer. host: here is "the washington post" story. they talk about peter wallace and in here. they say from the beginning, the report was limited. it was caused by the light -- and the regulation or lack of regulation, predatory lending, greed on wall street. what is he talking about here? guest: he has been singularly focused on government housing policy. for him, it is an original sin. without these, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, he argues, would not have happened.

the other republicans disagree. they say his account does not account for how the sub-prime mortgage mess, which were fairly tightly in terms of losses themselves, how did become magnified into been the systemic crisis? you have to look at how risk was concentrated. there is partisan division, but it is not like one person thought it was mrs. peacock in the parlor, and another person thought it was colonel mustard in the kitchen. there were many, many causes. all agree on that package -- agree on that. host: what will happen next? guest: the report goes to congress and the president. one of the major responses legislatively has already happened.

that was the dodd-frank wall street overhaul that was passed largely by democrats and signed into law by president obama last july. that lot is consistent with democratic findings today. if you believe that regulators fell down on the job, you would believe that more regulators, or better regulation is the answer. obviously, republicans and others disagree with that. host: do you know how much they spend on this? guest: the original budget was small for a commission of this size. it was maybe $10 million or $50 million. they had a staff of less than 100. they started very late. the commission was appointed two months off their may of 2009. it took time to get off the ground. host: we're talking about a final report of the financial

crisis inquiry commission. long island, new york, democratic line. go ahead. caller: i wonder if you gentlemen have scrutinized the presidential pardon that was granted and rescinded. they say the final act of any government is to lead the treasury as they leave office, which seems to be was taken place. ask a presidential pardon was rescinded because it was so obvious as the gentleman had stolen $30 million in one year alone, and then paid a $10,000 fine, and was granted a pardon on top of that? host: what is best to do with what we're talking about? caller: people got thrown out of their houses, and they resold the houses. they did it over and over each time. every dollar was given to these crooks at the top. host: is there a tie?

guest: there is discussion about the role the mortgage fraud played in developing this crisis in the report. some credit it as a major factor. host: in the majority or the minority report? guest: i did not think anyone denies there was a lot of fraud on the ill-informed borrowers. host: did dodd-frank address that? guest: it did lead to making sure consumers have more information. host: what has the consumer protection agency been up to? guest: mostly hiring a staff as it prepares to take over responsibility from a slew of

other regulators. 's the transfer occurs, they cannot get to creating legislation. host: will they be given one year? guest: there is not a lot clarity about whether ms. elizabeth warren wants the job. she is an acclaimed bankruptcy and consumer protection lawyer. it is not clear all too well whether the bureau has the legal authority to do the rulemaking's as a permanent director. host: let's hear from a republican in columbus, indiana. caller: the main thing i agree with is that this financial crisis was definitely avoidable. but, why was it not avoided? i want to read a quick exit

from his testimony before the house financial service committee in 2003, years before. here it goes. "despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting some capital costs to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. it cannot last forever. when the housing crisis false, homeowners will have experienced difficulty as their equity is wiped out. furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss that will be greater than they would have otherwise had not government policy to encourage other investment in housing." guest: that is a valid input -- criticism. the economy has had baubles and bursts before without generating systemic crises.

the attack bauble. the economy went into a mild recession. there was not the requirement of trillions of dollars in bailout. we are faced with the question of why did this bubble result in a financial crisis? that is where you have everyone arguing that it was the constitution of risk -- the process of taking lows, packaging and selling them to investors, and then making bets on those products. you have to look of that layer of the cake. how does that translate into half of wall street's investment banks failing or been sold? you have to make that connection. host: the caller started out saying why was this unavoidable? guest: that is a great question. in a way, i do not think the

reports point out what could have been done to avoid it. the majority points out so many different failings, but never says had this one thing been different we would not have had the crisis. they point instead to the secretion or accumulation of two years by regulators, wall street executives, corporate directors and managers over two decades. they point to that has been a grand cause. they do not set on a certain date, had this been done differently, we would not have the crisis. host: of the democratic line, chris joins us from houston, texas. caller: i agree with what mr. sewell chan is saying that i agree with the policies i have been put in place now -- and i

agree with the policies that have been put in place now with the new program. guest: of the dodd-frank log? -- the dodd-frank what? caller: no. host: the consumer protection agency? caller: yes. i am a part of 12 investors. we did best in the different industries. one of the industry's we look at is green energy. without government involvement, we cannot and bust as far as our view. what do you think of that? do you not think the government needs to get involved before you can put money into it? guest: i did not have personal views on clean energy or energy subsidies.

host: bill, republican line. caller: no not on you, it seems like you are doing good work, and are well-informed. i have not read this report. but basically, we already know this. it is funny. it reminds me of the 9/11 commission. they have no idea of what the conclusion is going to be, and they sent everything into it. that is fine. host: let's get a response to that. did you learn anything new? guest: it is interesting. the parallels this gentleman raises to the 9/11 commission is a very interesting one. before the commission's report came out in 2004, people knew about intelligence failures. yet, the report became this

surprise best seller. it was a very compelling read. i am not quite sure this report will be the same thing, so to answer the question, i would not say the revelation has to be the barometer that we used to measure these reports. although he is sort of suggesting that maybe there should have been some shocking new finding, but i think it is more a question of what you want to emphasize. the story is complex. the causes are multiple in nature. it is a question of whose narrative you want to accept. was it the economic forces, or more because of institutional and individual phthaleins? my job is to describe the points of view. host: let me ask you about the report. did anything surprise you about it? guest: i have not read the entire day of it.

i have gone through much of it. i was surprised by the skating to home, frankly. -- skating -- scathing tone. its strength is the comprehensiveness of its indictment. arguably, the weakness is that it cast blame so widely and leaves no one unscathed. where do we goals from there in terms of policy? host: after you put your story of online, is anyone getting blamed responding quickly? guest: i think people are holding their responses until a final report. host: kansas city, patrick, a democratic line. go ahead. caller: i understand why we

cannot comprehend what happened. he is not severable -- sat immobile. what the research did along with donald p. morgan, the conclusion has come about that it was actually the bankruptcy laws in 2005 that remove the safety net for americans to take risk. they remove the safety net of bankruptcy. host: you are breaking up a little. are you following that? guest: i am a little. i have not heard a lot about the change in the bankruptcy code. if you walk away from a mortgage, or default, a and do not pay, debtholders cannot go left to your other assets. i do not think that was a major role in this crisis projected bankruptcy as a separate subject. host: here is a tweet

guest: i think fannie was privatized in the early 1970's. the issue was that for 30 years, they existed with the implicit understanding that if they ran into trouble, the federal government might have to bail them out. that the implicit assumption or fear was obviously made true in 2008. what was the other question? host: is the private sector still dumping balance into fannie and freddie? guest: right now, the market is not active. there are not really any sub- prime loans that are being put into the new pipeline. most of all loans coming in are

of a much higher quality than they were in 2005 and 2006. host: here is "the financial times this morning. they have been quietly lobbying to cut the dividend as a part of the government bailout can you decipher that for us next -- bailout. can you decipher that for us? guest: i am not entirely sure. the future of that is still to be determined. it is one of the things left off of the table and got frank was passed last year, the obama and administration plans to issue blueprint for the future of housing finance later this year. host: it says a lower dividend will allow the two to begin repaying taxpayer 8, and pave the way for a restructuring of the company. guest: a lot of people say it is

a little bit of a non-issue. essentially, since their government owned conservatorship, it is shifting from one arm to another. host: phoenix. welcome to the conversation. caller: i used to work for country right. i will say that not only was an unavoidable, it was planned. i remember reading of book 30 years ago called "the protocols." it details how to bring the american economy in line with the rest of the world to have an even playing field. guest: cannot ask what protocols you are referring to? i think that is well-known as

anti-semiteic. caller: that is what i have heard what is it forged from? guest: this is off topic, but it was written by agents for the russian government at that time. host: it has been dismissed. tampa, florida. john, the democratic line. caller: how do you feel about people that wants to blame barney frank and the fact of the government wanted to make homeownership easier for the american people? guest: i feel i kind of address this. this is a big debate. i would strongly suggest you work.out peter wallison's he has written an accent --

expensive 99-page report. there are others let's say that the crash of the housing bubble, even if it was brought on by the government, does not explain how the ed morse into a giant financial crisis. previous bubbles did not become financial crisis. those people are saying you have to look at how all of these institutions concentrated all of these risks on their books. in other words, the big banks made bad bets, and they all made the same bad debts. how and why was that permitted? host: on thursday, we get the unemployment numbers. becausethe numbers rose of snowstorms. applications rose to the highest level since late october.

host: bloomfield, mich., rod, a republican line. good morning. caller: what i have not heard said was the crash because by alan greenspan played short-term interest rate parity should have understood the absorption penthouses one of the market so fast that the bottom -- absorption. houses one of the market so fast that the bottom fell out. people found that the guy down the street put and his up at a lower price. guest: there is surprisingly good news for alan greenspan in here. the commission, both the democrats and republicans largely exonerate the greenspan

fed that they kept interest rates too high, too low. it has been a huge debate for a long time whether the interest rate policies promoted this disaster. both democrats and republicans say it was a contributing factor, but by no means a primary cause. the criticism i mentioned earlier was by the democrats, and focused on the failure of the fed under his leadership in its regulatory role. in its role for setting monetary policy, the news is actually good. both reports say not guilty. host: glenn, an independent line, a caller: all these other things and our health care. talking about the damage the

illegal immigrant population is doing to them. host: we are talking to sewell chan about the final report from the financial crisis inquiry commission. the story was on "the new york times" website yesterday. caller: i want to go back to the social engineering of freddie and fannie and ask your guest if he has seen the "60 minutes" special where the rainbow coalition and other groups had blackmailed banks into giving bad loans. they had guests who had gotten loans for five under thousand dollars homes when they had in comes with -- they had incomes of $20,000. guest: the question is whether

we should blame homeowners who did not know what they were doing and signed paperwork they did not understand. i assume they deserve some responsibility. this report looks at a much faster -- much vaster array. and then to the giant financial institutions, using exotic instruments like over-the- counter derivatives and collateralized debt obligations. finally, aig with its credit the fall swaps that gave insurance to people. it is a large, long chain of complexity that i think goes well beyond individual relationships between home borrowers and mortgage origination. host: charles on the democratic

line. caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first one would be -- i do not know why anybody has not talked about the politicians giving themselves raises and then their own parachutes. the other question is, i still don't understand why the corporation has the same rights underneath the constitution as human beings. a lot of it seems to be that most of the politicians are taking jobs as soliciting other politicians after they are out of office. it seems to me kind of like a conflict of interest. guest: i think you raised some great questions. i think there's a lot of outrage out there. why have institutions and not been held more accountable? why have politicians not been held accountable? why have there not been more

criminal charges? why haven't any bankers, even those of the firms that utterly failed, lost fortunes? very few have. can you name a major wall street banker who has ended up bankrupt because of the financial mess? it's very hard to name that. these basic issues of accountability. i think the report is potentially going to raise a debate over the nature of political oversight and the weakness of congressional oversight all these years that led to the crisis. also, how much scrutiny the government should give to wall street and corporate america in general. obviously, the results from the last election shows there's a lot of anger over the bailout. there was a major theme in the last election. i think many officeholders, particularly democrats, lost their seats because of that. host: does the inquiry

commission look at the issue of bailouts and comparing the different types? guest: it does a little bit. overall, the consensus in washington -- it does not see t.a.r.p. as an improper response. it's much more concerned about the erratic nature of the responses that led to t.a.r.p. host: becky on the line for independents. good morning. caller: first of all, thank you for c-span. what i do not understand is why people are not even looking, educating themselves about the federal reserve. basically, we did not have the federal reserve until 1913 the. before that, our dollars increase in value. it has done nothing but a decrease in value since then.

the federal reserve was supposed to stop all these baubles from occurring in the first place. all we have had is bubbles bursting ever since then. host: sewell chan? guest: you raised some very valid points. i should note that there were many, many terrible crashes and burst bubbles before 1913. you do raise an interesting issue about the role of the fed. there was a major effort to strip away the fed's regulatory duties. most people know about the fed's role in setting interest rates and supplying the amount of credit to the economy. they're not amount -- not aware of its role as a regulator of financial institutions. there was an effort to give that to other regulators. that's not what happened in the end. the legislation, in fact, strengthened the fed's role as a regulator of systemic financial institutions. the largest, most

interconnected companies, will be seen over by the fed. host: here is "the financial times" this morning. it says the federal reserve made a upgrade and kept its asset purchase program. the most important change to the statement was a reference to rising commodity prices, saying that although they had risen, longer term expectations have remained stable and a measure of underlying inflation has been trending down. what do you make of that? guest: inflation has been very low and unemployment has been very high. the fed has used that as justification for its plan announced in december to inject $600 billion into the banking system. this is not congress. this is the fed using its power to create bank reserves. it is essentially a license to print money. they're using the six under billion dollars to buy treasury bonds, which has the effect of

lowering long-term interest rates. why are they doing that question of they are ready lowered short- term interest rates to zero. now they're working on the longer-term interest rates. the criticism has been that if the fed does not act carefully enough, these bank reserves that are -- that i referred to earlier could trigger inflation down the line. the fed says it is mindful of that and aware that there has recently been a rise and commodity prices and food prices. it is saying that inflation does not seem to be a big concern now. there are obviously people who are skeptical about whether the fed will be able to manage that transition from its current policy of monetary expansion and ease to a policy of monetary tightening. right now, with inflation and unemployment, the fed thinks it is doing the right thing. host: steed is joining us from michigan on the line for

republicans. caller: let's all stop the blame game. i mean everybody. you cannot blame president obama or bush. they did what we had to do. we would be in a depression instead of a recession. what we need to do a shore up the fed. how do we do that? oal ine almost unlimited cal this country. we have almost unlimited oil. north and south dakota, due to a geographical surveys -- there's eight simple answer. quit blaming everybody. guest: it is a very optimistic message. i do not know very much about the natural energy resources. yes, it is an interesting question of how much is gain from an exercise that is potentially backward looking and

focuses on casting blame. a lot of people think it is important from a historical perspective to get an authoritative account of what happened. as we discussed earlier, with all the partisan divisions, it's hard to see that this will come away as a definitive account that everyone can agree with. host: the two chairs, the commissioners, have any of them talked about trying to push more reforms or doing something more after they conclude today? guest: the top democrat and republican, no, they have not. they have been that significant loggerheads since last december. host: any of them individually talking about continuing this type of work? guest: there are certainly individual commissioners that have been very involved in financial regulation. a very seasoned attorney was the chairwoman of the commodities futures trading commission in the late 1990's. it was she who in 2000

advocated coverage of and regulation of the over-the- counter derivatives. at the time, they were loosely regulated instruments that allowed companies to make bets on the movement of prices. she was shot down by people who included larry summers, who was the treasury secretary of the time, alan greenspan, the fed chairman at the time, and she is on this commission. people like bob rubin and greenspan have testified. in some ways, the majority report has indication of some of her positions. the decision to not regulate these derivatives was a turning point. host: any of them talking about writing a book. guest: i have not heard about that. that will be interesting.

they will have to see how this book today sells. host: how much does it cost? guest: $14.99. they're waiting to see how much it picks up. it is called "the financial crisis inquiry report." host: vanessa on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for c-span. on the other side of the derivatives, people do not talk about this a lot. they changed the law. it helped me to get a home. in 1998, me and my husband goes on it. by 2003, after paying all those years on an adjustable rate mortgage, they told us we could get a flat rate or a fixed rate after a couple years. that did not happen. this continued until 2004, when we finally got a foreclosure letter.

when we got our letter, i was not even 30 days late on a pavement ever. i have equity in my home. i bought it for $117,000. i had paid it down to $101,000. by the time we got to an attorney, we wound up losing our home. nobody talks about where the scam was on the other end. they sold our home after they foreclose on it in 2005 for $123,000. they have done it twice since then. how does that story relate to -- guest: i'm sorry you lost your home. there were many cases of fraud and abuse and deceptive practices by banks and mortgage lenders. one of the things the new consumer financial protection bureau was set up to address precisely the situation you are describing. host: before we go to the next phone call about the commission's work, this book is

500 pages. where will the profits go from the book? guest: first of all, i think it has to go -- they may have to pay some production cost. there's no individual profit that will be made. whatever proceeds come from the book will go back to the treasury. host: the commission will put out the final report today at 10:00 a.m. in washington to we will be covering it. if you want to find out when it will air, go to our website, c- span.org. here's a list of all the people who serve on this commission. chicago, steve on the line for democrats. caller: i'm curious if anything was mentioned about these bond rating companies that rated these at a-ratings when they were junk bonds. guest: the report describes them

wheel. in the the people of the rating industries often had not enough information and not even the right software to do their job. everything short of outright corruption is what went wrong with these credit rating companies. they did not properly assess the risk that they were supposed to evaluate. i think they come across looking very culpable in this report. host: how have they changed? guest: it is a complex question. the dodd-frank law with the securities and exchange commission in charge of these raging -- of these rating industries. there are still a very small number of them. people say it is similar to a monopoly.

but wonder how meaningful these reforms will be for the rating agencies. host: the headline -- is it tied to this question and now they're going to take a look at whether or not pension obligations for states -- they are going to put them on their balance sheets, which raises their debt obligations significantly. guest: yes, it is a slightly separate issue related how to account for and what is the most meaningful way to look at a state or government balance sheets and determine whether or not that government is in good health. that is the issue right now. states are under so much pressure. more municipalities are expected to file for bankruptcy. that could be part of an effort of these rating agencies to tighten their criteria. host: what will you be looking for from the commission's report? guest: that's a great question.

for one thing, more discussion of some of these characters. we had some high-flying wall street executives who offered testimony or were interviewed. es orooking for anecdotist dialogue. we have not seen the material yet. also, i'm very curious to look for examples that at some new ones, texture, drama to the three long, complex, and sad story about the financial crisis of 2008. host: sewell chan's story today is in "the new york times" business section. if you are interested in reading that and i suspect you have a story tomorrow as well. guest: i think so. host: coming up, efforts to boost science and math education in this country. first, a news update. >> more on the housing market

from foreclosure tracking firm realtytrac. more people are losing their homes in major cities like seattle, houston, and chicago. early in the housing bust, cities like seattle and chicago have been somewhat insulated from foreclosures. the number of people applying for unemployment benefits rising sharply due to snow related layoffs. applications rose by over 51,000 to the highest level since october. the commerce department says orders to factories for long- lasting durable goods dropped 2.5% last month. excluding the transportation sector, orders rose in december. beginning today, japanese and american troops are simulating a full-scale invasion of japan as part of a major war games exercise. it's the biggest maneuver held

in japan's army. japan has grown increasingly concerned about its defenses. about 50,000 u.s. troops are currently deployed throughout japan. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> for the record, i philosophically have always been opposed to taxpayer dollars used for political advocacy of any time. >> in the house, oklahoma republican tom cole offered a bill to reduce federal spending and the deficit by ending federal financing of presidential campaigns and party conventions. follow the entire debate in the final vote on line with c- span's congressional chronicle with time lines and transcripts of every house and senate session. congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: charles vest, president of

national academy of engineering. he is here to talk about efforts to boost science and math education in this country. the president talked about this in the state of the union address. national test scores are out this week. they _ the national academies point that the u.s. is slipping behind in science and math education. why? guest: first of all, it was wonderful to hear the president of the united states stand up very clearly that the world has changed. we have to start recognizing that and changing it. the national academy of sciences and engineering got into the study about seven years ago. a bipartisan group of senators and representatives came to us and said, "we would like for you to put together a blue ribbon committee and tell us what are

the specific steps that the federal government should take to keep the united states prosperous, competitive, and secure in the global marketplace in the 21st century." we came up with the report called "rising above the gathering storm." it was chaired by norm augustine, the former ceo of lockheed martin. we had 21 extraordinary americans that gave their time to the study. they were ceo's, current or former, of big companies. they were university presidents. we had two nobel prize winners. two of the members of the committee are now the secretary of defense and secretary of energy. we had people from the philanthropic world and people have served in the government and passed in both democrats and republican administrations. we think there are four basic issues. one is improving the quality of

k-12 education in science and math, or science, technology, engineering, and math. we needed to continue and sustain and expand the traditional support from the federal government for basic research, particularly in our universities and to some extent in small companies. we needed to continue to be the place world that checks the best and brightest young women and men into the fields, both in the united states and from around the world. we'll have to come back to that point. finally, a set of issues around tax policy, intellectual properties, and so forth. we believe it can help make the united states the best place in the world to innovate. those are our four priorities.

just last fall, we came out -- of course, we could not have those who are now serving in the government. we took a look at this again. what has happened in the past five years? unfortunately, the assessment of the committee was that during that five-year period, we have gone downhill from where we were. let me just say a quick word about the k-12 education, and then we can move into other things you would like to explore. we do not have the solution. we just know that this is the number one problem in the united states. not just to produce ph.d.'s, professors, and researchers, but a total work force that is competent, that has quantitative skills, that understands the physical and biological world, that can be compared to compete

with china, europe, ind in the future. unfortunately, we have some very daunting statistics. you mentioned the test scores. we know from about one month ago, the scores show that we continue to be very near the bottom in our mathematics performance, and our science performance. just yesterday, "the wall street journal" reported the national assessment test. again, and very little progress. only 3% of our young people were in the advanced region. we are between 25% to 30%, depending on the age range, as proficient in science. it's not about taking science. it's about the work force and the citizenry for the 21st century. we have two high priority ideas

on k-12. they are not original, but we think they're very powerful. part of the problem is we need a 21st century teacher corps that is trained and educated in the disciplines they teach. a good teacher has to have a knowledge base and proficiency and also has to have a good human qualities and pedagogy. where we have been the weakest is in proficiency. about 2/3 of kids in the united states study science and math under teachers who have no credentials in these fields. we have replicated a program that has been very effective in texas called you teach. it helps young men and women become educated at the university level in the disciplines of physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, and so forth, and

become credentialed to teach in k-12. by doing this at a large scale, we can begin to see the teacher corps of the future. the second is that we believe, based on data, that advanced placement subjects have -- having teachers qualified to teach at the ap level in more students taking subjects at that level begins to raise the whole system. we propose a set of incentives for teachers to be prepared to teach at that level and for students to take and pass subjects in science, math, and also in english at the ap level. this has been shown to work. that has been picked up by a private organization called the national science and math initiative in dallas. we are in about 14 states around the country. we are bringing that up to

scale. at the end of the day, only government levels of investment to bring these things to all our kids. host: let's show the viewers the numbers from what you came up with. the u.s. ranks 27th out of 29 wealthy countries in the proportion of college students with degrees in science or engineering. is it the way that we teach science and math versus the way china and other countries teach science and math? guest: may be worse yet. we are so used to thinking that we are number one because we love this country and it is great. we are stagnating and going down.

the other countries are coming up. it is some mixture of the way we go about education. frankly, also what t culture values and holds up. if you go to china, india, or singapore, or if you go to european countries, you will find great admiration for teaching at -- teaching as a profession. you will find families, communities, who really celebrate learning. the irony of all of this is that these countries have learned from us. they have looked and said -- who over the last 100 years has led the world? the united states. who is the most innovative? the united states. where did the internet come from? the united states. they begin to look at that and they say, why? because we have this

extraordinary system of public and private research universities. in the post sputnik era we did a quantum jump in the increase of the attention to science and math and that has faded. other people are simply looking at what we have been doing and doing better. host: we want to get to our callers and get them involved. by the way, we have a separate line for educators and students. we want to hear from you. i want to show our viewers what the president had to say in the state of the union address on this issue. >> over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school education. as many as one-quarter of our students are not even finishing high school. the quality of our science and math education lags behind many other nations.

america has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people with a college degree. the question is whether all of us as citizens and parents are willing to do what is necessary to give every child a chance to succeed. host: charles vest, he also talked about out educating other countries. "the new york times" yesterday, i believe, had a facts versus rhetoric of the president's speech. they noted that other countries do not send their students to school as long as we require and the united states. we require 13 years. again, is it an issue of quality versus quantity? guest: it's both. we prided ourselves properly on getting everyone an opportunity in the united states. our goal should be to educate

everybody well. does everybody need to be a scientist or engineer? no. are the best of china's schools as good or better than ours? yes. is the average school as good or better than ours? probably not. these other countries are coming up the hill. they are wending their way up. that is easier than it is to stay on top. it's one thing to improve your innovation capacity, to build more industries, to come up the hill. it's quite another thing to be the united states and have to compete in the rest of the world and maintain our quality of life. we have a tough, double system problem. host: sheldon is waiting for us in pennsylvania. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. let me just explain a few things.

i have been a -- i am a recently retired fifth grade teacher. i taught for 30 years. this great means all the subjects. you can apply what i'm saying to every subject. i was a firm believer in -- what ever you teach -- take science and math, for example, because that is the topic of the day. i think you should show the kids that there is a practical, everyday use for what is being taught. guest: first of all, thank you 4 having devoted your career to the most important profession in the united states. i absolutely agree that all of the research tends to show, especially in science and math and engineering, discovery based

learning, understanding what the application is -- with a new generation, by the way, showing them how these are the tools with which they can build not just a better life for themselves but make the world better. this is crucial and that is a key part of the human side of teaching, which you have expressed so well. if you combine disciplinary knowledge and ability to show relevance and a belief in the kids themselves, to convince them that they can accomplish great things -- if you do all three of those things, we're getting far down the track. thank you. host: if people want to read the report, where can they go? guest: the report is on the

website of the national academies. it's pretty easy to find. it is downloadable, free in pdf form. host: nea.edu. what you do at mit and how has that played a role? guest: that is sort of background for me. i'm a graduate of west virginia university. in 1990, i had the remarkable opportunity to serve as the president of mit, which i did for 14 years. that has been my main accomplishment and passion. i currently am on leave from mit

for six years to provide paul -- provide further public- service. host: jim on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two comments. my wife and i have a son and daughter. they're both college graduates with degrees in education. of theking to them, one biggest problems both of them face in relation to public schools is a lack of discipline. i can remember 50 years ago, when i graduated from high school -- i almost went to school in fear of the teachers and the system because we were very strongly disciplined. there was a very strong learning environment. also, the use of computers so much and video games by young people -- so many young people

today have a problem relating to other people because there used to relating to a screen. guest: you raise two really fundamental and important points. i also grew up in a time in which we just assumed discipline in the schools. that's a bit why i use the word culture. the best performing schools -- they can be anywhere, including in the inner city, do have an environment that shows belief in the kids and does instill a sense of discipline and pride. it's a tough job for teachers today. it certainly has to be one of the goals. your second flight -- second point. host: too much time looking at computers. guest: we have to wrestle with this.

the world has changed. there are ups and downs. kids are beginning to learn in different ways. one of the big challenges for educators today is to understand how to use that creatively. if you think back to what the earlier caller said about practical applications and implications of what they learned in the classroom, and computers, stimulation, and so forth, -- computers and simulation can be a part of that. i know a few companies. when they start off their engineers, the put them into a boot camp and give them problems to work on. they take away their computers. they say you have a paper and pencil. we have to have a combination. the fact is that a lot of computer-based, neuroscience

driven things are emerging that can help tailor education to individual kids so that they can progress at their own pace and learn more. host: do other countries do that? guest: nobody is doing this on a massive scale. worked out of carnegie mellon iuniversity and others are beginning to develop these schools. i believe, in the united states and other parts of the world, in due course, the use of information technology and computers for learning is going to increase. at the end of the day, education is a human endeavor. it takes both. host: debbie on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i am listening to you

talk and i agree with you that matt has gone down. my son is in ninth grade in new york city public schools. i was informed that algebra, geometry, calculus would not be taught. it was too difficult for the kids. this was in 1995. when i went up to the school to ask them why this was done, they said -- we would like to have the kids graduate, so we are lowering the bar. i said, what about college? they said that was not going to be a problem because they can all take remedial math when they get to college. you are talking about five years ago. i'm talking about 16 years ago that they started lowering the bar. we started this in 1995, before computers were a big thing. no disrespect intended, but you're a little bit behind. this started a lot earlier. guest: absolutely.

this has probably been a 35-year slide. i did not mean to imply anything other than that. let me go back to my mit experience for a minute. i think it tells us something. mit is full of truly extraordinary, taunting, disciplined, hard-working, enthusiastic, creative young men and women. the vast majority of them have attended public high schools in the united states in big cities, little towns, all across the country. we know that some good education is going on out there. at the same time, we keep looking at these average measurements, looking at the international comparisons, and we see the average is sliding. what does that mean? it means we have a top layer of

really good students and really good teachers. we are getting more and more of our kids what -- kids away below that. we have to have the political will and the culture to believe that every young person can learn and we have to give them the tools and the opportunity to do that. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania. go ahead debbie. caller: would you consider creating a website for people who are home schooling? if you're in a school district and they're not up to the levels and standards that you think they should be. guest: let me go out on a limb and suggest something. by the way, it's interesting you mention home schooling. if i could refer back to my mit experience, we also get a very substantial number of extraordinary home schooled kids. unfortunately, every kid in america does not live in a home in which that is possible. one of the things we did at mit

is to start a thing called mit open courseware. this was aimed at universities putting the primary teaching materials for all 2000 of our subjects on the web for free. they have now put a high school portal into the open courseware website that allows people and people involved in home schooling would be a great example of those who could take advantage of this. it gives them a look into the introductory courses. i urge you to take a look at that. i know there are a lot of materials from carnegie-mellon university and others that i hope you will find helpful. if you will e-mail me, i will try to find other resources for you. host: dorothy on the line for republicans. caller: i was going to ask about

his studies and what it had to do with home schooling. i have a comment. that would be that -- he i believe it began in the late 1970's or maybe the early 1980's. focus on educating our children would be to make them into little global citizens. they are not interested in having our children become smart. the dumbing down of americans -- there's a book that i do not think is in print anymore, but it is a book everybody should read. guest: the real point is this bifurcation of kids who come from families, come from communities, and attend schools that are dedicated to educating great citizens for our country and in the world in the 21st century and those who have

fallen far behind. we have to raise the bottom up and keep the top going up. i agree that there has been some dumbing down of education, but there are also a lot of places around this country where it has vastly improved. they are kind of bifurcated. host: santa rosa, california. bill on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. do you believe our fear of risk or possibly lawsuits when it comes to children might be keeping us from giving them the kind of hands-on experience early that might be preparing their earlier for science and engineering study? i read in "life without lawyers" a book that i discovered on book notes that in germany they have these concepts for children where the children can build things with scrap lumber and

tear them down and build them again. it's hard to imagine such a thing here because of the risk of giving tools to children. guest: this is a really interesting observation and question. risk, of course, is really an important concept in the united states when it comes to starting new companies and things like that. a few years ago, i was at a very large luncheon that had an audience of a group of highly accomplished scientists and engineers. there were a lot of nobel laureates there. the state -- the speaker said, "everybody who used to blow things up when you were kids,? raise your," and everybody raise their hands. if you look at a chemistry set, you cannot find any thing to do anything interesting. this nation educate about eight

thousand ph.d. is and 44,000 lawyers. i think we crossed the bar in some ways in reducing or attempting to reduce risks that may debt -- that may get in the way. hands-on education and relevant education is what turns on kids and involves them. we have probably crossed the babar -- that bar. host: i want to go back to a question i asked earlier. i'm looking for specifics, if they exist, of how china and other countries teach math. do they do it differently than the methodology in the united states? guest: i'm not a defense expert on this, but i can give you a couple of observations from things i know and have seen it from when i was in china and also in singapore. first of all, they insist on

deep disciplinary knowledge of their mathematics teachers. chinese math teachers know mathematics. they note it to -- they know it to the level they have to teach and they know it in context. the second is a very intense education. there are some positive than negatives that we have to talk about. if you go to the best schools in china, if you talk to the educators in singapore, which i happen to know a little bit more in depth. they will say we are much better than you in the united states and raising the average. we still think most of your schools do a much better job in bringing out the real creativity and flexibility in kids. one of the things i worry about looking forward -- they are

aware of this problem and there went to work at it. singapore used to have a very strong focus just on science, engineering, and business. they are now bringing in humanities and arts. the same thing as a ploy to start happening in the -- the same thing is going to start happening at the k-12 level. they're going to catch us. then we will be in trouble. host: we will go to cambridge. jen on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. it seems like so much of the major issue is -- you just mentioned we are producing more lawyers than ph.d.. how do we create a culture where we revered teachers and we encourage the best minds in our country to want to go into teaching? that seems to be a huge part of the problem. guest: a thing this is the dream

we all have. ipod offer a couple -- i would offer a couple of suggestions. first of all, our leaders, our president, corporate ceo's, people look up to two to lead our society, they have got to start talking about this. as i said, the most important thing we can do for this nation is make teaching the most respected profession. we have to start putting that down as a goal. the second thing is that i think there -- i think that a culture that except that, and particularly young people, we are finding when we look at why kids do and do not study fields like science and engineering, we have a pretty idealistic generation coming along right now.

they are interested in solving the big problems the world faces. energy, sustainability, health, and security. if we can relate education to the kind of world we could have, we could begin putting out a vision that will hopefully move our culture somewhat in this direction. you know that physics problems are a lot easier than changing culture. it has to be done. i think it starts with constant messages delivered by our leaders and following through on how important teaching is. host: what is the america competes act? guest: it is a bit of authorizing legislation that basically took the recommendations of the original report from the national academies and put it into law. that law was passed five years

ago. it was passed by unanimous consent in the senate. it was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the house and signed into law by president bush. it started this down, at least at the of the rising level, the path to begin to implement the recommendations. that law came up for reauthorization. at the very end of the congress, it was reauthorize to, again by unanimous consent in the senate and a much smaller bipartisan vote in the house, but it did pass. it now provides the opportunity for congress to come up with the funding and the implementation. host: california, doug, good morning. caller: the president said in his address that we need to make the study of science and math

and engineering more cool. it is obviously not in our country compared to places like singapore. i wonder if you can comment on what parents could do and what schools can do. you also mentioned that there are programs for college and high-school students who are thinking about going into teaching education for science and math. if you could repeat that. guest: yes. first of all, i wish there was a simple formula for making science and math cool as viewed by the country. the fact is, they are cool. by the way, the national academies are working very hard on this. given where our society operates, i think the entertainment industry can be very helpful to us. by the way, they understand it. if you go to a company like -- they will say they

are a group of artists and engineers. they know that technology underlies everything they do. take a look at what happened whencs happenedi -- what happened when "csi"went on television. a lot of people wanted to go into forensic science. i think that the entertainment industry can help us tap into this idealism and show how science and engineering are relevant to solving the world's great problems. the second point about the teacher preparation -- i was referring specifically to the concept of getting universities to buy in and hopefully provide

fellowships and scholarships for undergraduates to go to university, public or private, study a discipline, get a degree in math, computer science, or whatever it is, and simultaneously become equipped to be credentialed to teach in the k-12 system. host: tommy, in independent. you are on the air. caller: i want to salute mr. vest. i want to ask this question, but i have some comments. this has been a great interview. the different nations that are part of the study you have been referencing -- how much do we know about their mandatory k-12 education?

i'm sure that neither india or china, the average kids do not go to school, at least not for long periods they pump a lot of money into intelligence, including social intelligence. that is first. they are learning to be like ireland. find out all the genius is that are poverty-stricken and try to educate them. host: charles vest? guest: two parts for the very important question. thank you for asking. at the very beginning, when we were looking at some of these statistics, one of us mentioned that the united states among the oecd countries is no. 11 in the fraction of our young people 25 to 35 years old who are high- school graduates. we can no longer fall back on the excuse that we try to educate everybody and the others do not.

if you look at china or india, we have to be realistic. we are talking about 3 billion people across those countries. they are still developing countries. absolutely, it is the top lawyer that is being educated. that's the bad news. the good news is that it is a highly competitive situation in both countries. you have just a good chance, a little town in the western part of china as you do growing up in shanghai or beijing of studying hard and getting and added to a university. yes -- yes, they do a good job with the top layer. if you look s singapore, hong kong, and so forth, there educating as much or more of their population then we are. host: troy, ohio. pat on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. host: good morning.

caller: i have a question of how people, myself, might become more involved with the education process. i created quite a number of demonstrations in astronomy. astronomy is the first science. if you go back generations, it was the first observable science. where does the sun rise? where does the sunset? how high does it go in the winter, in the summer, at the equinoxes? my demonstrations are mostly about the moon, the sun, and the earth systems. it requires an understanding of geometry to explain the lunar phases. there's nothing i would like better than to have a wider audience. i have affiliations with local

and national astronomy associations. i would like to have more of an inroad to get into classrooms and so forth. i would like to know if you know of a way that people can become more involved in the teaching process with -- without renewing my teachers' lessons that came from kentucky years ago. guest: it's wonderful you are doing these things. i could just pick up the passion, even though i cannot see you. i can imagine how well that would rub off on young people. this would have to start at the local level. i hope you're getting some receptivity, either through the classroom, clubs, and so forth. i agree that astronomy is probably -- has probably brought more kids into the understanding of the excitement of science than any other field.

right now, i cannot give you a specific reference to tap into a national organization, but if you will e-mail me, i will find one and connect you as best i can. i have a granddaughter who is in the seventh grade now. she has a person who is a retired engineer from one of the companies around here who comes in after school. it's a huge turn onto her. in her case, it has to do with seeing his passion and what he has done and she can related to what hshe is doing. host: what is the e-mail? guest: cvest on the line for republicansneau -- cvest at neau.edu.