♪ >> good morning. the scene in tahrir square as traffic greenrooms -- resumes normalcy. soldiers are taking down the makeshift tents as protestors are being asked to leave but some remain they're reluctant to leave liberation square. here in washington, tomorrow's budget day for the president. the document to be submitted to congress will take a surgical approach to spending cuts, making rooms were targeted increases. republicans will try to make broader cuts. are needed to bring spending under control. that is our focus for the first 45 minutes of "washington journal." the president begins the process releasing his budget proposal tomorrow and we will bring you details from the

sunday morning papers and how the story is expected to play out over the next couple of days. the president will also talk about education in baltimore as he discusses the investment in initiatives for education, research and the phone numbers are on your screen. host: the weekly addresses of senator hatch and the president will be released tomorrow. here is a front-page story in "the washington post."

also, the ap is reporting that the president will be looking at the pell grant program. the savings will be about $90 billion over the next 10 years pretty program would limit the amount of money that students can get from the pell grant program to $5,500 per year. the weekly standard has limited government and a strong defense, focusing on pentagon spending.

we will hear first from robert in san antonio, good morning. caller: good morning. my answer for the cutting of these programs, as a libertarian, i strongly believe that all programs should be cut. many people would oppose that. there are many people that would say we need programs or we need help, but i believe in something called spontaneous order which has worked since the beginning of time -- animals have gone extinct.

people moved around the planet and took down big animals with them. host: democrat line, good morning. caller: i think the republican'' ideas to cut all the social programs to help the poorest of the poor is the wrong thing to do. the tax cut was for the rich. that was also the wrong thing to do. the people at the bottom are suffering. there are more and more of them all the time that are unemployed and need the help area that will not make our country stronger. we need jobs, jobs, jobs. rich people don't need any more money, thank you. host: we are focusing on the president's budget.

it will be released tomorrow from the white house. there will be testifying in front of congressional committees in the next month. can you imagine $1 trillion? we are expected to reach the debt ceiling no later than may.

stephanie is joining us from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i agree with the lady before me. i think the rich could have paid more. this is a suggestion for another program. with medicare, i understand that half of the medicare is paid for people in the last two weeks of life. that is like pulling the plug on grandma. i'm a grandmother. i agree with polling the plug on grandma. i don't want these extraordinary things done for me. that is a total waste of money. you don't have many programs that you talk about medicare and where things go to. i would like to plug ron paul

who won the c-pac vote again. if republicans will put him up for president, write his name in. host: thank you for the call. we will have more on c-pac coming up later in the program.

next is battle creek, michigan, good morning. caller: i think they need to make cuts wherever they can make cuts, but they need to get taxation back up to where it was during the clinton administration. it is a myth that bigger taxes would cost jobs. that is simply put out there by the republicans. host: we're focusing on the president's budget. he talked about it yesterday in his weekly address where he said that the budget cuts will be sharp and severe but also take aim at some republicans who are looking for more draconian cuts in the budget which begins october 1. there is still the continuing resolution which will keep the government running between now and the end of the fiscal year

which is the end of september. the deadline for that is march 3 or 4. we are seeing debate on that as well. >> my budget freezes annual domestic spending for the next five years, even on programs i care deeply about which will reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade. this freeze will bring this type of spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since dwight eisenhower was president. we stripped down the budget by getting rid of waste. we are getting rid of thousands of government-on buildings that sit empty because they are not needed. i have proposed freezing salaries for hard-working government employees because everyone has to do their part. i will make sure that politics does not add to our deficit by vetoing any bill that contains your marks. host: that address is also available online at c-span.org.

los angeles is next, good morning. we will go to charleston, south carolina, next. caller: how are you doing this morning? i think our problem stems from the household when you carry debt. you try to cut your spending but one of the big things you do to -- is to increase your income. the problem stems from the inequity and the tax code that allows corporations and wealthy individuals to continue to get away without paying their tax. as far as the budget, as an independent, i did not vote for somebody who would take a meat axe to the port and that is a very big issue. if you come after the pour

heavy-handed like the republicans plan on doing, what you saw in egypt can happen here. i would caution that you don't come after the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable in society because we cannot stand the appeal. host: thank you. this is from twitter -- next is jim, from virginia on airline for republicans. caller: good morning. i am in the fuel business. i see the way they put money out for these people to get assistance. they give the money about two weeks before christmas. let me tell you something -- it

is called before december. it hits us at the worst time. we cannot take care of these people. i have seen people and they get $200. fuel today is that about $3.29 per gallon. hello ! you don't stay warm long on that. i hope somebody here is this. all the stimulus crap we had before, if they had gone out and given every household $100,000, you would not have us in this recession now. you would have the people who would buy cars and buy homes and people would pay off things and people who would say. host: dirk as this point --

next is sheila on our line from democrats, from georgia, good morning. caller: i am from carrollton. i agree with the lady who called in about the living will. i am 60 years old and i have a living will. no way anybody is going to put me in a nursing home. somebody needs to oversee what is going on in medicare. and cut out a lot of this stuff. my grandmother, i took her because she had a hard mapping that did not work. they separated the chambers in her heart. that did not work. then they put in a pacemaker. this cost medicare thousands and

thousands of dollars. somebody should have told us no. my grandmother at 92 finally said that you cannot keep me alive forever. that is why i have a living will. host: where do you draw the line? do you do it two weeks before somebody expects to pass away? when you really know based on the advances we have in health care? it is expensive, you're absolutely right. caller: that is the big problem. my grandmother had tachycardia and was in the hospital a couple of times a week while they tried to adjust your blood pressure and everything. -- her blood pressure and everything. when you are a family member, you don't think about cost.

you don't want this person to die. host: we have all been in that situation. caller: it is a real hard thing. i worked in a nursing home. they need to be better- regulated because i watched people being forced said in those nursing homes -- force fed in those nursing homes and it is all about money. host: we are going to focus on the budget but this is an important issue. we will look at this again in the future. caller: as far as the budget -- we should have had this discussion tuesday after the budget comes out host: there is

a lot in the newspaper this morning about what the president will propose. we will be talking about in the coming days and weeks. thank you for sharing your story with us. this is from twitter -- from the "miami herald" -- "the boston sunday globe" --

the president's proposal will be outlined for the budget tomorrow. west plains, missouri, republican line, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i am glad the president is changing his mind a little bit after this election. i think he is getting the message that we can keep spending. i would like to see the department of education get severely cut. and forestry and -- if the kids don't do schoolwork, i don't care how much money you throw into the department of education. it is up to the students to do their part with all the money we are giving them. as far as the poor, i am getting tired of hearing about the poor because in the 1990's and up to 2006, our economy was coming and they did not do much to improve themselves. they could have gotten a job in

any field and everybody was hiring. generations of these people stayed in port. they don't improve themselves when the time is right to improve. host: thank you for your call. earmjarks if they are not made in congress, does obama get to direct spending? back-to-back "the new york times.

next is a caller from dallas, texas, good morning, independent line. caller: is this for me? good morning. i don't have too much to said. i have a comment. i just want to say that i don't know too much about these politics. the question i have is why is everything having to do with the poor have to be cut concerning how the poor. i believe that people want to work and we need jobs here in

america. this is like our birthright of america has been deeded over to foreigners. this is our country first. it is not that they are not welcome here. you want to believe that the president has a heart, that he is cutting the most important things. you just don't know with the gop power and the conservative people that are constantly on him. for those who are tired of the poor, let us have the training to have the wall street jobs. i'm sure it would not take too much to catch on making lots of money. thank you very much. host: here is another point -- next is john from san antonio, good morning. caller: good morning. i am missing a lot.

half the people don't understand anything about government and how the rich get rich. the rich don't get rich because of government, they get rich because of themselves and when they put a product on the line that people buy. the government, on the other hand, does not create wealth. they only create debt. every time you hire one of those suckers, somebody in the private sector has to pay a debt. think about what we do for government. they are very, very rich because of the private sector. they have a generous retirement pay, they have a generous health-care pay, and because of the private sector, not because. because. of government. it is like old egypt when you had the pharaohs and the serbs had to go out in the fields and

give 90% of what they made to government. this was the same during the slavery times in america. those people were out in the field giving all to the slave owners. we have the ruling class, government, taking all the riches of america unto themselves and then they have you believing that the problem we have is the rich man who went to work and earned what he got today. i want to be rich one day. i don't want government telling me when i can be rich and how it will take me to become rich. any budget they have, if they are not cutting the labor cost of government moving down to the private sector area, they are blowing smoke and lying to us all. host: thank you for the call. we are focusing on the president's budget. details will come out tomorrow.

the other debate in washington is the continuing resolution vote. that will come in late february or early march. caller: number 1 would be single payer. we don't have any room for insurance. it is not health care, it is health business. number two is the flat tax. everybody pay 50%. that goes for poor, rich, corporations. number three, e-verify, let's get serious with who is working and who belongs in this country. give everybody a fair shake. also, fire all the general staff and bring the troops, let's get serious about where we stand and

where recollect our money. host: another viewer says -- the chair of the house appropriations committee is looking at $100 billion worth of cuts on a vote that will take place late this month or early next month or less look at some of the items that would be cut. they would be 70 items and among them would be the environmental protection agency which would be cut $1.6 billion, community health centers, $1.3 billion, the office of science, just over $1 billion, the national institutes of health would see a billion dollars in cuts and community service block grants, $405 million eliminated from their budget, and the hud community development program. this is part of the continuing

resolution debate which is separate from what the president will be outlining to more for his budget for the fiscal year that is scheduled to start on september 1. welcome to the conversation. caller: freedom of speech and the right to vote, we have neither one. once you license speech, you destroy the democracy. host: thank you for the call. you can join in if you're an independent, a democrat, or republican. lloyd from huntington, west virginia, go ahead please. let's go to ray next in illinois, good morning. caller: good morning. part of this with everything

going on in egypt, i think we need to look at the foreign aid to all the countries around the world. and also, i think we need to stop the employee tax so that people have more money to spend. i think that would help. we need to look at things like subsidies, also. host: thanks for the call. here is another twitter comment. twitter.com/cspan is our twitter page.

you can read more in cq weekly. ray is joining us from illinois, good morning -- let's go to brad in columbia, south carolina. caller: i listened to some of your democratic callers complaining about inflation and energy prices going up in food prices going up. they vote for democratic party that makes all these natural gas and oil and coal and everything else we used to get energy. the price going up because the democratic party won't let us go get that. then they complain about illegal immigrants taking away their jobs but they vote for democratic party that lets more in so they can get more votes. they then complain about

education or the democrats controlled education. they won't even let disadvantaged people in d.c. get vouchers so they could get to a better school. they let the nea control of all. there are so many things that the democratic party directly cause problems and people keep voting for them. i would love to hear one of your democratic callers call and tell us why. it is amazing that this budget, mr. obama will keep spending more and more money probably to create more and more problems so that people say we need the government. the caller from texas was a great guy and had everything just right. it is not the rich that are the problem. you like to see an equitable income structure but government cannot do that. we need to start going after china and making sure they are

conducting fair and equitable trade policies without polluting the land and the world. host: from the new york times best-seller list -- you can read more by logging onto nytimes.com. next is can from morristown, new jersey, good morning. caller: it is interesting to hear the discussion. the gentleman who just spoke, i was thinking that as long as both parties which i consider to be one party have was convinced

there is a significant difference, we will be in this spiral in which the government serves only to corporations and is considerably giving more of the wealth of the state to the people who have the most already. he said there is no role for government in moderating that. of course there is. in most modern democracies, that is one of the primary functions of government to make sure there is the opportunity for people to prosper according to their merits but also, to mediate when corporations and the very wealthy get to a point where they have the power to diminish other people. the president is talking about getting rid of subsidies for heating. for the poor who don't have enough fuel yet, when you think about what has happened over the past decade, we have a government that has given everything to the corporations, billions and billions of dollars

to bail out wall street and the banks. there is nothing to save individuals who did all the right things and got a mortgage they thought was absolutely manageable. they were conned by the predators who sold it to them into believing there would be a steady interest instead of a ballooning interest rate. that is the rightful per view of government. one of the points that stays with me is when this president was campaigning, he said there is a building in grand cayman in which there was something like 12,000 corporate headquarters at this address. that is either an enormous building or it is a scam and we need to address this because these corporations are not paying american taxes and that has not been addressed.

the money goes to the people at the top. that is the per view and the responsibility of government to pay attention to that end fixes so there is some degree of fairness. host: aaron has this point -- there are two parts to the debate. the president's budget proposal will come forth to moral and more details as the debate continues with members of the president's cabinet testify before congressional committees. you also have the continuing resolution which will expire in early march and congress needs to pass that to keep the government running through the end of september.

hat was from friday's "washington post." robert from south carolina has this point -- next is keith from britain and, florida, republican line, good morning. -- keep from florida, republican line, good morning. caller: we talk about 3% of the people that have to pay the bulk of the tax. they call them the rich.

i think a 3% ratio would be considered a good ratio with most countries. as far as jobs for the poor, i am in the agriculture business in florida. you go out here and you see who is working the fields and working construction and working hotel services. they are mostly these migrants we talk about that immigrate from mexico. you never see any domestic people they're working but these people from mexico come here and they live in our country and can even have enough money to send back to mexico so they can have their family support a better way of life. i think that is pretty amazing given that the people here cannot do the same perio. host: here is another point --

senator orrin hatch is a republican from utah who is up for reelection next year and spoke at the tea party rally last monday on capitol hill and yesterday delivered the republican response >> the american people made their choice in electing conservative republicans to congress in sweeping victories at the state and local level. it is now the time for president obama to choose. will he listen to the people and reduce the size of government and get the spending and debt under control? will he become the guardian of an unsustainable status quo? next week, we will find out what joyce president obama makes when he releases his budget. unfortunately, early indications are that he and his capitol hill allies are not taking the nation spending crisis with the seriousness it deserves.

our massive debt must be confronted immediately. america cannot afford to kick this can down the road any longer. this challenge cannot be solved with higher taxes that will only result in lower economic growth and less opportunity for our children and grandchildren. host: senator orrin hatch with the republican response to the president was weekly address. we are focusing on the president's budget which is coming out tomorrow. the president is traveling to baltimore to focus on education. he will travel out was to or dead later this week to visit the intel factory. caller: i have suggestions that would help the budget. number one is,if the4 99'ers and the ones drawn unemployment, if they went to some kind of

school or they can find out what is going on these factors, that is number one. the country will not survive if we continue with the credit rating. i'm 66-years old. my credit is still messed up from 1959. if they get rid of the credit rating, people will buy. when you have a limit, people can't buy. they need to get rid of that. host: thank you for the call. from georgia --

if you take the money from the wretched will not be affected from our troyer page -- -- if you take the money from the rich, it will not affect the budget. caller: our you? let me give you an interesting statistic. in the first five jain countries in the world, the united states, china, japan, west germany, south korea. since we have 50,000 troops in japan, 50,000 troops in west germany and south korea, about

35,000 troops, why don't we invoiced those three giants countries? we should build them $50 billion each year for our troops who are there since we cannot bring them home. that is $150 billion increase revenue to our budget. i don't understand why we don't do that because of the troops that are there to protect these countries with respect to armaments, clothes, housing, and the troop salaries. the flip side to that is a reduction in our expenditures. president obama mentioned that there were 12 departments involved in exports. we should consolidate those.

he mentioned about the two departments involved in salmon research. why do we need two departments involved in researching salmon, fresh and salt water. i was the chief financial officer for 25 years in a computer company and my charge was to find ways to increase revenue and my mandate was reducing spending to make sure the company was profitable, competitive, and a going concern. host: thank you for those very specific suggestions. you can join in on the robust conversation.

from our e-mail -- if the republicans are serious, they should start by outlawing all pensions and health benefits offered by all government agencies including local governments. government agencies should only pay a gratuity to their retired and retirement employees and they should invest in as they wish or be allowed to buy into social security. patty is joining us west from wisconsin -- next from wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to see maybe not a budget cut but i would like to see republicans take on the pharmaceutical companies and have them negotiate medical prices for medicare and medicaid like they do in canada. that would probably cut in half the pharmaceutical costs paid out.

i saw someone talk about flood insurance. people are building in flood areas and i have cheap flood insurance. -- and they have achieved what insurance. what of the just say what it costs? those are a couple of things for people -- my husband and i lost fairly well paying jobs and we're working minimum-wage. we get food stamps and some assistance. we are working and getting that anyway. we want to be able to exist without it. i am sure the people against the port mean people other than us who are working. i have to say.

let them watch scrooge. host: thank you for the call. cq weekly focuses on failure to compete. "the weekly standard" -- "the new york times" --

the newsmakers program this week includes a conversation with steve israel. he is on the congressional campaign committee and he talked about the upcoming elections in 2012. this is a preview. >> there are several critical lessons. i have been focusing on us losing 9 million independent voters between 2006-2010. these are the voters who had faith in us and give us our votes in 2006 and they did it in 2008 and pulled back in 2010. we need to get them back and we are a good way toward doing that. those independent voters voted republican this time because the republicans made three promises, they said vote for us and we will create jobs. they said both for us and we will reduce debt. they said go for us and we will change the way washington works. they are a 0 for 3.

they did not reduce debt but they added $230 billion to death. they have not created any jobs. they said they would change the way washington works for the first vote they cast was to repeal health care for their constituents but refused to disclose whether they are taking it for themselves. how does that change how washington works? those are the issues that come with the independent voters. host: congressman steve israel, you could join us on newsmaker is at 10:00 eastern and it will be rebroadcast at 6:00 p.m. eastern. it is also available on cspan radio. we will also have a sunday round table. we will have the executive director of the concord coalition and we will turn our attention to the situation in egypt and what is next for the egyptian military and the middle east in general.

we'll talk about the domino effect that some say is happening in the middle east. that is ahead on "washington journal," here's a look at the other sunday morning programs which can be heard on cspan radio. >> you can hear replays of the five network talk shows. topics today include the situation in egypt and the middle east. , the federal budget and presidential politics. "meet the press" will have house speaker john boehner. at 1:00, "tjhis week," christiane armond pour will host. "fox news sunday" airs at 2:00 p.m.

at 3:00 p.m., it is a re-air of the state of the union. also, the white house budget director jacob lew. "face the nation" as john mccain. the five network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the networks and cspan. that begins at noon eastern. listen to of all on cspan radio, 90.1 in the d.c. area and xm/ satellite radio. >> this weekend, on c-span 3,

but the discrimination in the south and the kennedy administration's strategy to overcome it and a look at the beliefs of our founding fathers and the role of christianity in establishing our nation and senator daniel in a way and his military service in world war two with the old japanese american 442nd regimental combat team. experience american history tv on c-span 3. all weekend, every weekend. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org/history. you can have the schedules e- mailed to you. that is not only one of the major challenges facing higher education but also facing our country which is how we maintain a healthy lifestyle and get kids to have the strength and judgment to say no. >>r gerald turner is the

president of southern baptist university. he will be on cspan pa "q &a." "washington journal" continues. host: our sunday round table, welcome back. let's begin with c-pac conference which wrapped up yesterday. coming in first in the non- binding straw poll again this year, texas commerce ron paul getting 30%. what do you read into those numbers? guest: ron paul has proved to be

pretty popular. this group -- the tracks college students and their behind the libertarian message. if you combine the ron paul and gary johnson numbers, you get more than 1/3. that is the great libertarian side of the party. i think you will see some very interesting shaking of the party from that side. the 2008 democratic presidential field, if you look at them, the top three candidates, edwards, clinton, obama, they were running a campaign closer to the dennis kucinich 2004 campaign. whoever wins the republican nomination in 2012 will be running something closer to the ron paul 2008 campaign. that is some of the direction

the party is going host: rounding out the list are three or four individuals who are likely to run for president including newt gingrich, tim pawlenti, minn. congresswoman michelle bachmann, and mitch daniels, the current governor of indiana. guest: these are individuals will been organizing and getting ready for an actual presidential campaign or some of them have been more of a tease. mitch daniels, this does not show a groundswell of support but it shows they have a launching pad there is a little bit of support for them and will have a ways to go if they want to get out rate -- name recognition. host: a cover story from the national review -- the front page story of the miami herald is --

he has no intent to run. guest: that is an interesting story. i have not heard the begging in washington from the conservative side of washington. i have heard some folks saying wooded -- wouldn't it be interesting if --. he has been fairly solid about not running. the bush fenty is a very real factor out there. -- the bush petite is a very real factor out there. -- a the bushfatigue is a very real factor i can't imagine that the boy fatigue has gone away

enough. host: george bush sold about 2 million copies. guest: and a former president will attract a certain amount of attention. it is not a typical memoir. he is open about some of his decisions and willingness to stir up controversy. that will probably have some residual of fact. we can only take a jeb bush at his word. there is no indication he is building up an organization or that he has folks in iowa, new hampshire or anything of that nature. it looks like he is not running. host: we will talk about the situation in egypt and the budget outlined by the white house tomorrow. we want to focus on c-pac. ron paul came in first and he is a former libertarian presidential candidate. this is part of what he had to separate >> i am glad to see the

revolution is continuing. we have seen some of the results of the revolution of a few years ago and that was last year's election. we have a few new members in congress. we have you to thank for it. i want to take a moment to take a special privilege and say that we also had a new senator from kentucky and we like that, too. there is a lot of exciting things going on. there is truly a revolution going on in this country. we have been dealing with this and encouraging it. i believe we live in a time where we do need a change in attitude, a change in ideas buried we don't need to just change the political party, we need to change our philosophy about what this country is all about. host: what ron paul so popular

among conservatives? guest: this message of the government borrowing to bay ,ron paul has squatted on that message since he ran back in 2008. you now have much of the rest of the party and the tea party energy is very much behind that message. he has been there were the rest of that republican party is going. he may be further than the rest of the party at this point. he may be either in front or in a different place than them, but they are moving in that direction. we could go through all the issues. he may be more extreme on the federal reserve and the gold standard but the basic of the government needs to live within its means at ron paul rallies in 2007, he would save a were

'constitution' and his fans would go crazy. guest: he has been out front talking about these issues for 30 years in congress. some of his ideas have actually gone sort of mainstream in republican circles he and even among some democrats like auditing the federal reserve or giving scrutiny to their policies of printing more money. i think there is a breakdown with his foreign-policy views. he is essentially an isolationist. he does not believe in an assertive foreign policy and not of the nature that george w. bush as ballast and john mccain and other leaders of the party. there is in increasing amounts of members of congress who are questioning troop levels in afghanistan and iraq but that is not a majority of the party.

if congress paul starts to pick up traction, his foreign-policy views would get more scrutiny. host: you're never senior edit "politico." your also the all of"going dirty." terry is joining us from pennsylvania, republican lie caller:. my question is for your to reporters. i am watching the events in egypt over the last couple of weeks, the liberal media has been ecstatic over the change in egypt. they said the protesters were unhappy with the government and they were speaking up. the economy and jobs or in the

tank. look at how the liberal media treated the protesters in america, the tea party. they painted them as racists or carrying swastikas. they are trying to give obama credit with what is going on in egypt. it is just amazing. the 2012 campaign has started with the media trying to promote obama. host: these are photographs and news from egypt. you can see a very different situation on this sunday morning midafternoon in cairo. guest: from the u.s. government's standpoint, it will be a tough transition. president obama had some remarks friday afternoon after we got the news that the egyptian

president mubarak is stepping the military has to continue some sort of commitment to democracy. there will be a lot of pressure on him to do it with the security side of things, make sure that they do not achieve victory over a sand in the egyptian government. there are not that much leverage he has to pull. we saw the lower level of leverage he has to pull. throughout the first 18 days of the crisis. host: what egypt can teach america. it is a new day in the arab world. let's hope that the truth is that the u.s. has been behind the curve not only in in the shed and indonesia, but in the entire middle east for decades. we support autocrats as long as they keep oil flowing.

guest: this is been the critique from the left in the right that this is something fundamentally wrong with u.s. foreign policy directed toward the arab world. it is supporting these autocratic leaders that do not have popular support. there are a lot of question marks about how to replace them, how they threaten u.s. interests, a lot of geopolitical sense iterations. -- considerations. hillary clinton was there just a few weeks before the egyptian uprising. she made this point. it is hard to believe in cause and effect but it seems that the administration was how they had this a bit. it was not completely ignored. host: from your vantage point with members of congress keeping a close eye on this and the money part of it, the $1.5 billion that the united states provides egypt, what business?

>> that is the only major lever that the u.s. can pull, to stop it or let it continue as a report -- as a reward. it is the sentiment that the u.s. -- even though foreign aid is a miniscule part of the u.s. budget, that sentiment is certainly out there. congress is under the same sort of pressure as the white house, to figure out a way through. host: david mark, the white house proposals will be out tomorrow. it would barely put a dent in the deficits that congressional budget analysts say could approach $12 trillion through 2021. the policies would stabilize ball rolling, and reverse the trend would put a blunt of the trauma of the recent recession. >> it will not be enough for

congressional republicans. they will said the cuts are too small, they do not go far enough, the administration will counter that we have to maintain some of these services. we cannot cut of all in one year. but it is like having a huge credit card bill and paying down 20% of that, at least making again. it remains to be seen how much will get through congress. the budget the president proposes is just that -- a proposal, only a beginning. we are in for a long fight in going forward on these budget issues. guest: the art two good test we will see on the budget. one thing both for proposing is cuts to the low end, assistance program. the president proposes that to 2008 levels and republicans propose cuts on that. northeast centers in particular

have said that they oppose that. harry reid says he opposes those sorts of cuts. that can be the first test for the president, to see how serious he is about cuts, and the congressional republicans. and the f-35, the ultimate engine program. the pentagon says it does not want. congressional republicans have included it. they have left that in their continuing resolution. the president has repeatedly issued a veto threat over this period that will be a real test. it is easy money for them to go after and they did not. the president has said he will veto. they will be another test. host: it does not matter who runs against president obama in 2012, the economy will be booming in the unemployment rate will be 6%. obama rules. guest: even the most optimistic

economists i've heard leaning toward the democrats has not predicted 6% unemployment. that may be far out but the basic point is correct. the economy seems to be on the upswing unemployment has dropped to 9%, better than what it was. the ash on the blue jobs created is not particularly strong. the stock market says the gdp is growing at a reasonably healthy clip. the economy does not seem to be turning around. we're still 21 months out from the election. a lot can change. host: stephan dinan, many congressman announcing their retirement. in arizona, senator john kyl saying he will not seek a fourth term. some speculation about representative gabby giffords.

guest: as a virginian, i was looking forward to the rematch between allen and web. that would be one of the big senate races. senator webb has announced he will be returning to the private sector. democrats are under a little problem there. their bench is not particularly deep in virginia. while republicans are deep, george allen is the giant in that race right now. there are conservative tea party types who are planning on challenging him. the republican binge in arizona is also incredibly deep. the democratic and it is slightly deeper than it is in virginia. you mentioned gabby giffords. we have the story that if she runs, if she is up for it in she runs, it is hers for the taking. the amount of goodwill out there for her right now is so

exceptional, it is tough to challenge gabby giffords from either side if she chooses to run. guest: there is a long way to go before that. we do not really know her health prognosis at this point. very optimistic reports about her recovery, but let's remember she was shot in the head and we do not know exactly how that will play out. where she will end up medically, the thinking was that she should run for her house seat again in the tucson area. it puts a freeze on all the other candidates. on the republican side in arizona, there were seven or eight viable candidates, three or four members of congress, others who could jump in, others waiting in see. in virginia, the most we hear about is the former democratic governor. he is the democratic national committee chairman. if he had not become dna -- dnc chairman, he might have a

better shot. when you're the head of the party, you have to defend with the president is doing at every turn. some of this obama administration positions may not play well in virginia. it may be more of an albatross than people are thinking. host: he said last week he did not think he had another race in him. he said that before the jim webb announcement. guest: exactly. he ruled out seriously before hand. i have not heard one way or the other what he had said cents. that is exactly the question. there are a couple of members of congress talk about whether he lost his reelection bid in the that they should be in november. host: another departure, christopher lee. it was the worst week in washington.

one of the questions often asked is, what was he thinking? [laughter] guest: who knows? i will say this. the numbers might prove me wrong but there is a sense that people who come to washington believe that the normal rules do not apply to them. i do not know they do not realize that in washington, our celebrities are politicians, that you will get noticed. the nose? host: we talked to steve israel head of the democratic campaign committee. the special election that will be later this spring. >> i do not know what it is about new york and special elections. every few months, it is back to new york for special election. it is not a slam dunk democratic district. i have an obligation to be honest.

is a potential opportunity, if the president obama that 47% there, john kerry got 43%. it is not necessarily a slam dunk. it is a republican district -- that the republicans must hold. >> one of the rumors that we have heard is that the white house official bill burton might be interested in the sea. have you had conversations with bill? >> no direct conversations with bill. we're respectful of the process. if @ two conference calls with the county chairs, how you feel about the district? this is to we want -- so we make sure that we respect the collaboration. i've had conference calls with the county cheers. we're talking to local leaders, local political leaders.

we respect the process and i assume that if bill is interested, is having the same conversations i have had over the past couple of days. host: that was steve israel, referring to the seas last year as well. guest: he is right in that sense. new york of state has seen a number of these elections. there was another one -- kirsten gillibrand, when she was appointed to the senate, plenty of things going on. there was one for the secretary of the army. he hits on an interesting point. the nominees are not chosen by primary voters. they are selected by county chairs that go behind closed doors and make the decision. it is not necessarily to the party folks in washington might want. you can see funny things going on in this upstate new york special elections. host: on the grisly story, its

shows how quickly the story unfolded. we heard about it mid-afternoon, he announced his resignation at 5:00 that same day. guest: that speed did not shock people but i was sitting in the senate press gallery watching it. had that play out that quickly, there are other members of congress who have been through not exactly the same thing but similar situations who are still sitting in congress. for him to have gone in that short period of time was interesting. why did he go so quickly? i do not know. one person has told me that a theory, that says that he maybe had more of a natural sense of and harassment about what he did then some of the other people still sitting in congress. there was a sense that he got pushed. speaker boehner says that it was his own decision but certainly

given all the other things the republicans have going on, republicans were happy to see him go so quickly and not remain and drag out this issues. host: david mark, another election in chicago. by all accounts rahm emanuel is ahead in the polls. it is the majority, he would get elected. guest: the former obama chief of staff, former member of congress from illinois, it looks like he is going to claim the chicago mayoral seat on the first ballot. he may be pushed off to a runoff, but he seems to be in a commanding position. had he not live there, he had not really been a part of the committee for the past couple of years. he had the name recognition. he was able to unite various factions of the traditional party machine folks, the upper

and liberals, north side chicago group, analysts like he has a good shot. host: kathy is joining us from cleveland. the democrats' line, good morning. caller: i have a couple of things that i would like to get off my chest. yes, there are jobs, but they are only 16 hours a week. how can you raise a kid on 16 hours a week? they are not hiring full-time. there are jobs but 8 to 16 hours a week this is not putting on -- food on the table for a full family. obama is trying to get health insurance for the rest of the people who have not got it. number three, the security -- we pay so much money to security but it done not -- it did not stop the 9/11 attack. at midday. we have a good day.

guest: the health care one, i'll take care that quickly. we will see this play out. the country is absolutely divided on the health care bill. the polls suggest a certain percentage in favor of repeal, others in favor of fixing it, others in favor of going further. it will play out in the courts and throughout congress. one of the interesting things about the budget -- the continuing resolution for the rest of the 2011 spending bill that that house republicans proposed on friday and will vote on, the proposed stopping funding for the exact title, a particular office for health reform. they propose to halt the funding for that office. there are ways the republicans are going to continue to try to push this -- not exactly the repeal, but ways to hinder that law. we will see how that plays out. host: the republican line.

caller: i think you're dismissing the wrong thing. i think that for him to win last year and again this year is not a matter of a bunch of college students very active and very much a control of the convention. this is a very sustained an active group that is when the conduct a very intense campaign in iowa and new hampshire that will shock the republican establishment. if he gets the nomination in 2012, it will totally revolutionized not just the republican party but american politics. it is such a way that the republican party will have the greatest shift in its fundamental shift since 1952

when the eisenhower, big government, to cover the party and really stole it from the classical, liberal, small government. guest: i did not mean to minimize their ron paul candidacy. i would tell the caller at cpac, it is a broad gathering of conservative activists from around the country. getting good social conservatives, defense conservatives come and those who were definitely the most pro-run ball were the young college students. that is not minimizing it. that is where a lot of this support is coming from. that is a very important thing in the nominating process. the caller is is the right. would run poll win the nomination, he would be a major shift in the republican party. that is absolutely true.

i am the one that thinks that the next republican nominee will look more like one poll in 2008. but we heard about his strength in iowa back in 2008. we heard about his money bonds, a sizable about money. you may remember the exact percentage that he got in the iowa. it did not translate into major victories in primary after primary. it did not translate into victories. we will see if 2012 is different. but the amount of attention and money he had could have translated into something less time and did not. host: there is up peace posted online at the politico. rick santorum touched off of media firestone that. to denigrate sarah palin and her response was swift and unforgiving. guest: comments by rick santorum

now considering a bid for the republican nomination. his essential message was sarah palin was skipping cpac so that chicago make money, making speeches and other financial ventures. there was some blood back pretty quickly about that. he came in for a lot of criticism. he took it that that was not what he meant. he went after political by name. by the video tape, it seems that what he was implying. he was the first likely presidential candidate to really criticize sarah palin. he backpedaled on it, but some people think he would've been better off sticking with that line of criticism, punching above his way, getting his name up there, getting mentioned in the same breath with sarah palin. he would seem like a more viable candidates. we will see how the other candidates respond. host: ron paul came in first.

coming in second was mitt romney. gary johnson, the former new mexico governor, and the governor of new jersey tie for third place. a great line to david keene, who brought the factions together. nobel peace prizes had been awarded for less. guest: the responses of this. i number of social conservative birds dropped out of cpac. they had been there holding booths and what not. they dropped out, arguing that goproud is incompatible.

this is what we mentioned earlier with the different factions, and the social conservatives at cpac and who does the voting. david keane managed to keep the peace. is the chairman of cpac, he is stepping down as chairman of the american conservative the union. he was able to keep the peace this year. i do not know that this will last through the next year of cpac. there was a lot of push back from these groups that want -- that do not believe that the gay republican activist groups are compatible. host: 1 sarah palin -- guest: a lot of people would agree with that. if she wants to be in the political agreement, she is going to alienate a lot of people. this is one reason why she might

not choose to make the race. she is in a good position now. she is certainly in a lucrative position. why would you want to undergo all these attacks not just from democrats but from republican primary rivals who will have to go after her if she is the front runner? that is how politics works. she and ron paul of the two major factors right now in the republican primary at this early stage. they are the folks that are the major factors there. she has a very devoted set of supporters. there are also a huge number of folks who are in the anybody but palin crowd. rick santorum, if he stuck to his guns, that was the opening to become the earliest of the anyone but palin candidates. host: stephan dinan is with the

washington times and david markets with the political. from birmingham, alabama, good morning. caller: a couple of issues here. one is health care. the democrats do not get it, ok? we came out in massive numbers. states have passed laws against forcing americans to buy anything. that is common sense. we should not have to pay for it. the government has way over reached over the last 100 years. it is time to go back to the constitution, just like ron paul. the constitution is one to pull the conservative republicans to gather to go back to a constitutional government, which is a quarter of what it should be. it needs to be a quarter of what it is. they are involved in our

everyday life. like the sozzled my light bulbs. host: the budget debate will begin in earnest this week. guest: there is something going on here. you have a whole bunch of people who picked up the constitution for the first time in a long time, read it through, lifted the federal government and said these things do not square route. there are a number things the government does right now that you look at it and say how can that be? but there are 100 -- 200 years of supreme court case law that have allowed all of these government actions to build up. what we're looking at here, and what one paul is talking about, and is the driving force behind the tea party and the republicans doing on the capitol right now, with those two things are colliding. the buildup of constitutional case law in the original meaning

of the constitution. we will have that fight in the courts over healthcare and what republicans are putting in the budget. we will have this fight. kohler will see the class she is talking about play out. host: from twitter. he took the coveted speaking spot rejected by sarah palin. we covered it live on the c-span network. here is congressman west. >> but as be remembered of the pillars of kurd terrorism which will lead us to the new dawn of the new america. the first one is very simple. it is effective and efficient constitutional government, when thomas jefferson said, "my reading of history convinces me that most that the government

results from too much government." [applause] therefore let me ask you a simple question -- do you believe that america can survive as a bureaucratic ministate? >> noaa! >> and you are absolutely correct. and i appreciate the emphasis over there. [laughter] [applause] the framers of our constitution, they had one true intent, to put a restraining order on big government. fiscal conservatism is a derivative of constitutional government, which understands it's right and proper mandate, and that is why next week, we're going to cut $100 million of spending off of the federal budget. host: david mark, there is a dual debate going on with what

congressman wes talk about. the continuing resolution debate and the fiscal year 2012 budget debate. first of all, your reaction to conference midwest. guest: it's something to see a freshman congressman giving the keynote speaker. last year it was the land back in that position. -- it was glenn beck in that position. the time before, it was rush limbaugh. is essentially making that argument that we have been discussing this morning and we will hear a lot more of on the campaign trail in 2012 from the various presidential candidates. it marked him as a rising star and someone who will be out in the public eye a lot more. regarding the spending programs, it is a dual track issue. before the democrats got out of town, to keep the government running they had to pass the continuing resolution which has funded the government at the

previous year's level. that runs out in late march or so. congress and the president still have to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, september 30. republicans in the house, many of the freshmen want to cut $100 billion as congressman west noted. that is a tough lift for a truncated budget year. then that is the next budget year, republican leaders have not been very amenable to kidding -- they had been in the $30 billion range. it is not clear how it is one of the resolved. host: west palm beach florida for stephan dinan and david mark. caller: first-time caller. i really have to give the wonderful agenda of c-span, what they're doing -- when you watch

something alive and you do not fit the sound bites and media of what they're trying to pose, it is a wonderful idea. host: as they say in those commercials, we approve that message. caller: it is so wonderful thing. on a personal note, all little bit less hair mousse. i am agreeing with everything you are trying to say. i was thinking, way back, if it took a long time for this phone call to come through, but the f- 35, i am an aircraft mechanic and like having dual engines for the whole thing, you have to reconfigure the whole air frame. you should stick with one thing and i'm getting tired of the earmarks being deployed across the idea of all the government

trying to be redundant. i just think we have gone into an idea where, you know, we spend absolutely too much money, too much money. what i mean -- host: we would get a response. do not be a stranger. stephan dinan. guest: he mentioned earmarks. one of the things the republicans -- earmarks are officially gone in the 2011 and 2010. they are rescinding -- they're not rescinding. there are no earmarks in the continuing resolution. both sides have agreed there will not be earmarked requests in 2011. that is a major request. it is still a very symbolic step

that congress is taking. all of that, the more important fight will be d f-35 in the alternate engines. we want to see whether obama wants to outbid republicans on cuts. he has a veto threat on any bill that spends for this alternate engines. the house republicans still have that money in the bill. we will see that play out. host: what the president calls investment, the republicans called spending. on our twitter page -- guest: the basic argument that goes on every day. democrats led by president obama, most democrats on capitol hill would consider spending to be in desman. growing for the future, whether high-speed rail, health care,

you cannot cut those kinds of programs because it is going to hurt economic growth in the future. republicans have the different role -- world view. they have the majority in the house and it is the argument we will. going forward. we are already seen democratic members of congress putting a press release saying that you cannot cut these programs because it will hurt people. that is what we will hear four months to come. host: from twitter -- guest: congressional for senate democrats have taken the line that republican cuts are to die -- too deep. you can get to where you can get by cutting waste. that is the line that they are going to use going forward. it is an interesting attack, and gets that the issue of those -- what you're talking about, one person's spending is another

person's investment. the white house realizes that has to go further than that proof vice-president by and was delivering a speech at the university of louisville. he literally -- as democrats were saying we should only cut waste, biden said that we will have to cut muscle. this is not just about that. president obama has the middle ground position right now between those senate democrats and house republicans. we will see how that plays out. host: dayton, ohio, car line for independents. caller: i am commenting on the budget proposal. to hear some of the callers saying they are sick and tired of hearing about the poor, 48% of americans do not pay their

taxes, and so i can only -- it is very complex. i listen to you all in the round table. it is like listening to sports, like football commentators. people like me -- respectfully i say this -- people like me, i want to know how is it going to be government for the people? what are they going to do is i do my place, doing my thing as an american, paying my taxes, working hard? i like to note that i am a divorced mom, left with kids, could not finish my degree. i had to work get these jobs where they do not pay you enough. this is so prevalent in our american citizen. -- system. i would be considered low-middle

income. and they are talking about rapport. i am falling off the edge of po or if i can i get decent wages. host: let me put two issues on the table. we're going to get word that there is $90 billion in the pell grant programs which provides grants to college students. capping the amount that they get to $6,500. -- $5,500. this is coming from the white house budget proposal. caller: and it is coming from government workers who cannot relate to someone like myself. you will hear people come up the middle class who are just over that hump, they have their

degree in a given enough money so -- they are still be going to fall over into where i am if things do not change. those things of cutting from the port, i can only relate. i can pay my bills but i have nothing left over. i can see what is going to happen. it is going to affect me. it will make my situation worse when we keep on having this attitude, we cannot really relate. we are paying for the government officials to work for us. ok? host: a couple of quick question. have you received unemployment in the past? caller: never. host: do you own or rent your home? caller: i have to rent. host: you have any savings? caller: no savings. host: how much do you learn a year? caller: probably about $25,000. host: we will get a response.

thank you for calling. guest: these and the conditions of millions of people facing in one form or another. there is a human cost to when you cut programs. this is what members of congress will hear from their constituents as well. what bothers a lot of people about talk of budget cuts is when they feel it is coming down unfairly on their group, when they say, ok, we have to take a hit, but other folks are still getting what they had before, whether it is defense spending, big corporations, you hear more from the democratic side. republicans have their own view of it. i think it will be a revolution to the fiscal crisis, something that affects everybody, where all groups take a hit, and get their budgets shaved down. host: the unemployment rate, the other number is the u.s. debt clock, $14.1 trillion.

guest: the fundamental problem that the government is dealing with is that tax revenue has been completely divorced from spending. over the last several years, spending his summer on the order -- you do this as a percentage of gross domestic product, how much of the economy is taken up by this -- government spending has been on the order of 24% of the economy. i believe for 2009-2010. revenue is in the order of 50%, and 8% gap. for every dollar the government spanned, 40 cents of that is being borrowed. that cannot be continued. this is what families go through in congress is going to have to deal with that. there are hard choices to make. the question is where to the tax increases come? where did the spending cuts

come? host: of focus on the reagan on the centennial of his birth. he lowered the tax rate but then raise taxes in certain areas 11 times. guest: that is not often brought up by supporters. it is brought up multiple times by people who are not big fans. but it is a good model for what both sides may have to look at. it is not abandon ideology or their core beliefs. it is about of pragmatism. realizing that as stephen said coming you have to cope -- close the budget deficit somehow. will have real world ramifications on future generations and even our current generation. very difficult choices will have to be made, whether raising taxes, cutting spending, even cutting out popular tax deductions. charitable giving, something like that, which could bring in a good deal of revenue to the federal treasury.

host: and there are 30 lobbyist on every issue they will focus on matters something else. as go to lee in bad rouge, louisiana. caller: good morning. i have a cold so you have to bear with me. not got a question and i do see anything in the news media about this. a cut this over the internet -- 11 states are finding proof of eligibility, that anyone that is going to run in that state has to prove they are eligible. in other words, that they were natural born citizens in the united states. you never see it in the news. when this first guarded, i saw

two 43 states, now it is up to 11. i did not know. i imagine there will be over half of the states that are going to pass these laws. i was wondering how this with that election in 2012. host: think for the call. guest: the caller is talking about something that is on the mind on a very insistent group of folks. i have never been able to get a handle on how big that group of folks is. the question the president obama's citizenship and where he was born. there's no question that people are out there that want to drive this issue, and still question the president's birth, essentially whether he is eligible for president. the new governor of hawaii has promised to get to the bottom of this and make it clear what his

current status was. the last i checked in, they were having some difficulty figuring out exactly which documentation to release. we may end up getting an answer. whether it will convince the people who doubt the president's birth, i do not know. guest: that is the interesting thing that the caller is talking about. there is absolutely a movement from people -- not just people question the president. it is a move to establish, if this is a requirement of the constitution for the presidency, should you have to prove this to the -- i guess, the satisfaction of some sort of authority along the way? that would be with the state effort would be. with a thick anywhere or not, i would not know. host: new clothes in the budget

deficit coming have to work from both ends. reducing spending and increasing income. as a way to get there, someone writes about president obama breaking bread with the gop. is try to strike up a more intimate report with republicans with whom he has had a long feud. this is a sport that he will need in the newly divided washington. in a series of private lunches and in the oval office, a meeting with senator john mccain, and even the most chummy of american sporting events, a super bowl party. >> this is part of a continuing effort to bring down the level of partisanship, infected, particularly after the tragedy in arizona with congresswoman giffords. it was a push to lower the heat of political rhetoric, even if it does not change policy. it is about a political reality.

these people are running the house, whether speaker john painter, kevin mccarthy, eric cantor, even though individuals with which the republican -- the obama administration has to do business. there is no harm for having them over to the super bowl party. i am not sure it will change the policy one way or the other. it is something the american people would like to see at a basic level of civility. host: at the super bowl party, pat toomey, a harsh critic of the president. guest: david raises the question, how far these meetings and get you. i was offered the example of how bipartisanship actually plays out. a lot of attention being given to the tax deals that republicans struck with democrats in the lame duck session last year. if you look that has to, republicans said that tax cuts for everyone should be extended.

they got their way. democrats said they need to do more spending on unemployment benefits. they got their way. the federal budget, the long- term federal budget to the hit. when bipartisan ship breaks out in washington, is often the budget that takes a hit. they cannot hit -- happen anymore. that is where i think bipartisanship does break down. host: sandy from detroit, you get the last word. we lost that call. last night on saturday night live, taking a look at the week's events, including the situation in egypt. there is an excerpt from last night's program. >> history was made friday when hosni mubarak out of pressure from peaceful protesters and step down from office. no were what he would do next. there's only one job available for an 82-year-old man. [laughter]

this week was the conservative political action conference, an annual meeting of conservative politicians and activists, or some people call it, tea party, y comic-con. guest: it will be interesting to see what president mubarak does. how do not think it will be in that position, the saturday night live position. guest: i am convinced that there are people who can for trade george washington or some of these other people, there is money in traveling around as a tea party re-enacted. host: our sunday round table, gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us. at the end of the program, will take a look at the situation in egypt and move the story ahead with what is best for our relations and what role did the

u.s. play in the ouster of president mubarak after 30 years? that is coming up next, but next, the debt and deficit. robert bixby is with the concord coalition. we will look at the week's events has seen by leading editorial cartoonist throughout the country.

>> this weekend, voting discrimination in the south and the kid administration strategy to overcome it. also look at the belief of our founding fathers and the role of christianity in establishing our nation. the land senator on his military

service in world war ii with the all-japanese and regimental combat team. experience american history tv on c-span3 all weekend, every weekend. for complete schedule, go to c- span.org/history and click on the c-span on alert button and have the schedule e-mailed to you. >> "washington journal" continues. >> what do we get underway here. robert bixby is the executive director of the concord coalition. will we learn from the president's proposal tomorrow and what kind of debate can we expect? guest: i think we will learn one thing, which is how seriously he is taking their report of his fiscal commission to see if there is any recommendations made by the commission they will get into the budget? it will talk about the magnitude of the problem and what the administration plans to do about it, what makes of spending cuts

and tax increases should be used and how quickly we might get back to a sustainable but the situation. host: the media debate will be on the continuing resolution. congress will have to vote and no later than march 4 to extend the funding of the government through the end of this fiscal year. we're seeing some cuts being put forward by hal rogers, chairman of the appropriations committee, $1.6 billion in the environmental protection agency, and the office of science, of billion dollars being proposed, nih, $1 billion, the energy efficiency program would be under $1 billion. and the center for disease control, a budget cut of $755 million. host: the substantial cuts being proposed. it seems as though they are

overly ambitious, to make those cuts. but i think we will have quite a battle between the democrats and republicans over setting the spending for just this year. we're talking about the remainder of the fiscal year we are in right now, let alone the budget process that will begin for next year, 2012. those things will be going on simultaneously. host: can you reduce the deficit without reducing income? guest: i think you can. it will be politically unfeasible because of the size of the cuts would not fly. at the concord coalition, we say that everything needs to be on the table. it will take a mix of spending reductions and revenue increases. that is what the commission proposed and another commission that i served on propose that as well. some sort of a mix.

host: how did we get to this point? we had a projected surplus, we have the wars in iraq and afghanistan, but those alone could not have created a $12 trillion deficit. guest: it is a combination of bad luck and bad policy. we got careless and fiscal policy, increase spending at the same time we were cutting taxes and by quite a bit in both directions. we had a big budget deficit going into what happened in 2008, of very severe recession and a financial crisis, which lowered revenues even more, and caused spending to go way up. some of that will go away as the economy recovers. but we have an underlying structural deficit right now that is unsustainable by itself. in other words, they're really serious thing that even is when the economy recovers and even a

reduction in some of the war costs, and your looking at a budget deficit of about 4% of the economy. host: we keep hearing that figure from the white house that that percentage of the gdp, the one of bring it down to the level of dwight eisenhower. explain the politics behind that. guest: when you look at that, it is not just the number loan, but how that relates to the size of the economy, because that tells you whether you can afford to the debt. it is important to know whether that is going up or going down. if it is stable, it is sustainable. it is going up,, then eventually it is unsustainable. is going up quite a bit. the administration is trying to focus on trying to stabilize the debt-to-gdp ratio.

it is higher than it has ever been since world war ii. now what is going up, where before was going down. host: the other part of the debate is looking into how taxes are collected. there is some ideas that congress members have voted. a value-added tax like we see in great britain. guest: from a budgetary point of view, you want to look at it from an economic view as well. from the budgetary point of view, the bottom line is what will give you enough revenues to pay for your expenditures. a flat tax, if you would probably have to set the rate at sufficiently high levels that it could be politically problematic, whereas with the progressive structure, you can have lower rates for some people in higher rates for other people.

but theoretically, the platter the tax structure, the better. and on the value-added tax, it tends to generate a great deal of revenue, considered a very economically efficient way of collecting revenue, and we do not do it in this country but many european countries do. is one of the ideas out there that has been proposed certainly in the commission that i was on. we proposed a small -- it is not a value-added tax. it was similar to it. a national consumption tax. host: if you own a home and you pay the bank on the monthly mortgage, the interest paid is deducted at the end of the year. summit said it needs to be eliminated as a way to generate more revenue. he talked about this and the last hour. you can imagine the mortgage bankers association and other lobbyists fighting hard and the impact it could have on home sales and homeownership with a fragile economy.

your turn to raise revenue in yet some say 11 impact on the economy in homeownership. guest: yes, and the problem that is true of all the major proposals. that is one of the many things that you've heard through past expenditures. it means a whole bunch of exemptions and credits and deductions and exclusions from the regular tax rules that believe revenue out of the systems. what happens there is that you have to have higher rates than you would otherwise to generate the same amount of revenue. a lot of the revenue is lost because of these exemptions and deductions. one of the ad is for raising revenue and improving the tax code is to do away with or to substantially limit all these things, broadening the base. that was the trade-off is that you can have substantially lower rates. a simpler tax code which both

commissions expressed an interest in doing. you could give a political win- win their the you could get lower rates and a more efficient system and in generates more revenue. anything you did, if you take some of those is loosens and deductions, they are very popular. people the benefit from them like them very much in that can use to them. what you attack title months -- when you attacked the entitlements, we will have to lick it politically difficult options. there are no popular options in the sense that people are -- there will not be any political challenge to this. host: robert bixby is the executive director of the concord coalition. you can get more information by

logging on to their web site. in a sentence are to come in your mission statement is what? guest: to promote a fiscally responsible federal budget. our grass-roots organization with members around the country. nonpartisan. host: on the issue of the by u.s. and tax -- that valley -- the value added tax. guest: we could do that as well. a sales tax functions very similar to a value-added tax. the idea of both is that you are taxing consumption rather than savings. host: rad joins us from fort worth, texas. caller: i switched up on the subject that you're on. i would like to say i have listened to this show many

times. most people do not know how much they pay on taxes. they also did not address -- they do not pay any taxes as i understand it. bair original subject they do not like of -- like to point to germany who are keeping people employed to would be laid off now. they put a cap on their health- care costs. they also have innovative ways to keep people working. there was a 25% unionized in their unemployment is only 7%. maybe they could address some things like that. host: we will get a response. guest: all countries do things differently. i suppose that there are things that we can learn from other countries. germany has been traditionally a very adverse to running the deficits and doing stimulus

financing, because they have had a history in their country of rapid and when that inflation. there is various debate about whether -- use fiscal stimulus to stimulate the economy. so far, their economy is doing well and people are employed. host: i do not believe we have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. next up is james from florida on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. am i on? i am name retired navy chief petty officer. i gotta notification in the air from the military retired section that my federal tax withholding is going up. in my particular case, it is

increasing 34.7%. i would like to know if your guest has any idea where this authorization came from because i sure do not. guest: no. all i am not sure why that would apply. host: typically you can determine how much will be taken out whether you are married, go, married with children, depending on your situation. guest: i do not know why unilaterally. host: shane from houston. caller: the morning. i have watched c-span along time. i have been shocked to find out that we live in a country where over 2000 retired and generals make between $100,000 and

$200,000 per year. allow them to know how many retired federal employees we have the thanks to the ronald reagan changes in the 1980's that have led to $300 billion per year and what is wrong with putting 40 and 50 year olds back to work instead of rewarding them? host: let me take his point and broaden that to the retired military and the states dealing with their own pension problems. guest: that is really a hidden problem that is becoming more evident as more state and local governments have huge unfunded pension obligations. it is easy to make future promises to your employees. often that as part of the negotiation in the contracts.

a lot of state and local governments had not been putting aside the money or realizing how much of these things would cost when they come due. we are seeing this all of the country and this will be a real challenge in the coming decade as these promises come down and sufficient money had not been set aside. the fiscal promises were not simply just a federal problem. host: our conversation as with robert beck street, the executive director of the concord -- robert bixby. mark from chicago. good morning. you have the volume up a. turn it down and we can hear you much better. go ahead with your question. are you with us?

i will put you on hold. next in beverly hills, california. go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. apparently we do have a spending problem in this country. i keep shaking my head. is pretty black-and-white and apparent to me. personally to manager budget within your family of, to balance your checkbook, you know what you can spend and you know where money needs to be allocated and saved. the problem is spending too much money. i believe stimulus, all of the money that has gone toward these stimulus packages, the country will rebound. what we have to do is tighten our belts and get down to

basics which is balancing the budget just like you would in your personal life. what do you think about going back to a flat tax? guest: on the first point, i think you are exactly right that we do not prioritize our spending at all. two-thirds of the federal budget is on autopilot. a lot of people do not realize that between the mandatory spending, and entitlements, and interest on the debt which we have to pay that is about two- thirds of the federal budget. the fights we are having now are on the so-called discretionary portion of the budget which is less than 40%. if you take out defense and get to the non-defense discretionary spending, the part of the budget we will hear a lot about in the coming couple of weeks when they

are debating continuing resolution is really about 15% of the budget. we hear this huge debate about it and it really is not the most problematic part of the budget. you can get defense spending which can grow much faster. if you want a real challenge again look at entitlement programs like medicaid, medicare, and social security, and then of course interest on the national debt. we are paying $200 billion now and it will go up to around $800 billion to $1 trillion. have to putto everything on the table and start prioritizing and making tough decisions. host: we have two headlines. we see this almost every week for out the country. this is "the detroit free press." the governor is learning the hard way that change is not easy.

this includes addressing the pension issue. many of these states to receive some federal assistance to try and offset their potential budget deficits. that will not happen this year. guest: no. the governors are facing the challenge of having to balance their budget. they have a constitutional requirement that mandates that they do it. so what we're finding is democratic governors and republican governors alike are having to make tough spending decisions and in some cases raising revenues. that is lacking so far in the federal level. host: arvada, ill., with robert -- urbana, ill., with robert bixby. caller: i wish you guys were

around 24/7. i have three suggestions for the budget. i do not see why anyone is receiving a pension making $150,000 per year. they should not be paying that much money in the first place because it apparently cannot manage it. the second is deducting the interest on loans from purchasing homes. you are buying it too much, if you have to do that. the local taxes -- you are buying too much home and you cannot afford it. it is a no win system except for the banks. that needs to be addressed by attrition instead of attacking current homeowners. third, there is nothing talking about prevention. we have a serious problem with water in this country. a lot of us have gotten 60%

raises on our water bill and that is only the beginning. in my community, they are working i $7 million project and they are not addressing how the water will be paid for. 1 ounce of prevention is worth 1 pound of a cure. guest: the first point she raises is about targeting federal benefits and i think we will have to have a better target towards income. whether we're talking about social security, medicare, any sort of foreign subsidies, anything, military retirement. i do not think need to move to a strict system of means testing but it makes more sense that if we're going to need to cut back on spending that it makes sense

to better target benefits to those of most in need. one of the solutions will leave more income debating of federal benefits. we have to touch on the home mortgage interest and more broadly, we need to look at the federal benefits that are administered to the tax code and look at them as subsidies. they subsidize certain activities, as in home ownership. and is a home ownership and cattlemen. there is no evidence we have a greater incidence of home ownership -- it is a home ownership entitlement. people who cannot afford it without the tax break. the final point that she raised about prevention is it right on.

we do not give a very good job in this country of investing in the future and trying to avoid problems rather than dealing with them as they come up in the crisis. host: "the new york times" focusing on egypt but also a story previewing the president's budget which will be out tomorrow. "six deep cuts in u.s. spending ." have you identified the amount of subsidies to the private sector like oil businesses? guest: you can look the numbers out -- up and there are various estimates from the cbo about with the tax expenditures would cost. one of the biggest tax expenditures is the tax break

for domestic production. i do not know what the annual figure is, somewhere around $40 billion or so. there are all sorts for private companies and individuals and we need to put that stuff on the table. host: "good luck trying to carry the mortgage interest reduction in the." next is spread from connecticut. good morning. -- next is fred. caller: senator sanders said last week from vermont that exxon made a $19 billion profit in the 2010 but got a refund by paying dividends. if this is a carefully controlled amount and tax revenues are falling, does that not mean the rich and corporations are invading to pay taxes to thousands of loopholes in the tax code? thank you. guest:sure they are and it's

perfectly legal. illegal is the tax evasion or tax avoidance. this is done through exemptions, credits, and we need to look at them. the more that you have, it means everyone else has to pay a higher rate to generate the same revenue. i would really like to see a major push on tax reform this year. i am not sure it will happen. that is my disappointment about what we have heard so far, that he is really not taking of some of the erskine bowles-alan simpson commission. they put a lot of really tough issues on the table. yes, they're tough on discretionary spending in the short term because you have to be.

particularly they focused attention on the long-term problem we have the structural mismatch and that means getting into tax reform and getting it to social security reform, medicare-medicaid reform and that is the debate we ought to be having not whether or not to cut $100 billion from this year's budget. it is narrowly focused on a very small part of the budget. host: bob bixby has spent more than two decades with the concord coalition. from ohio, good morning. go ahead, please. one more time for bill. in massachusetts. there is a slight delay, sauterne the volume down on your television set.

-- sauternes down the volume. caller: some agencies really need to bring closure to their activities. let's take to the dea. how long will it take before they bring closure to some of the things like they're doing like eradicating whenever they do? yesterday i sent my check to the irs and it was for $30 because i made just under $7,000 gross and $2,500 net with a profit of $0 so for my two quarters of social security, i have to pay in $30. i told my account and that i hope it goes straight to boehner's desk for them to divvy

up my $30. guest: you'll see an increased attention on ideas for the base on this tax. a lot of the things the government does not do very well is it too weak redundancies. everyone wants to create a new program and there's probably a lot of room for consolidation and we should look a pro grams for termination rather than just cutting. congressman cooper has a bill he will be proposing soon on an annual review commission to go to iran recommend things that can be terminated. i think that is a good idea. host: canton, ohio, on our republican line. caller: did morning.

i heard you say you were to close some loopholes. right now, american businesses are taxed a lot. i struggle to get by, but half the money i make goes to paying taxes whether it is local, federal, or state. insurance, hospitalization, retirement. i do not even keep half of my paycheck now. i get taxed even more. in the end, i spend 39% of the money that i make. you want to take more from me? i do not understand. maybe i should not work. host: what are your thoughts on that sentiment? guest: it is very common. people to not like paying taxes and that is understandable. we are collecting a lower share of the taxes than we were in the

1950's and have added a heck of a lot more spending. that is an unsustainable situation. we need spending under control and we should focus our attention on getting spending under control, but at some point we're going to have to look at more revenues. and not to be done in the most economically friendly way that we possibly can. we need to raise more revenues now if we're going to maintain the programs and defense that we seem to have voted for. host: a final question that sums up vestar discussion. on twitter, "mr. bixby, the debt is the $15 trillion. have we reached the tipping point? if not, what is the number?" guest: i do not think we have

come and the scary thing is we did not know what the number is. we could have a crisis and not know it. the debt to gdp ratio is high, around 65% or so. it is it really whether we take the steps now to prevent this from going up even further. we will reach the tipping point sometime very soon. it could be perhaps in the current budget window of 10 years. you can look at the interest costs, the debt to gdp ratio would go up around 100% depending on what assumptions you want to make just within the tenure budget window. you mentioned i have been with concord for a long time and have never been more concerned about the short term. we have been worried about the long term for a long time, but right now within the 10-year budget window you have an unsustainable situation. host: bob bixby, thank you for

being with us. guest: i hate to end on such a pessimistic note. thank you. host: will turn our attention to the situation in egypt. what is next for u.s. relations and what is the role of the muslim brotherhood? what impact will that have as a new government is formed in that country? sun is from this morning's associated press, they are dissolving parliament and suspending the constitution which meets two of the key demands of the protests we have been seeing over the last 18 days in tahrir square. that is coming of next on "washington journal. we are carried live on c-span radio every morning. sunday afternoon, we carry the other sunday morning programs. here's a preview. >> replays of the five network television talk-show programs beginning at noon eastern. topics today on the programs

include the situation in egypt, the scheduled budget, and presidential politics. "meet the press" starts at noon. house speaker boehner and former u.s. ambassador to israel. at 1:00 p.m., abc's "this week." talking to the israeli defense minister, former house speaker newt to gingrich, and former minnesota gov. republican tim pawlenty. host chris wallace welcomes the budget committee chairman, paul ryan, and haley barbour. talking to the former u.s. ambassador to the united nations and ed walker, former ambassador to egypt. also the white house budget director. finally at 4:00 p.m., "face the nation." bob schieffer and talks to john

mccain of arizona and mohamed elbaradei. those of the five network talk shows are as a public service by the networks and c-span. those begin at noon with "meet the press," "this week," "this sunday," "stated the union," and then "face the nation." you can listen to them on 90.1 fm in d.c., xm 132, or online at c-spanradio.org. >> voting discrimination in the south and the kennedy administration's strategy to overcome that. also come and look at the beliefs of our founding fathers and the role of christianity in establishing our nation. also, the all-japanese combat

battalion. american history tv on c-span3, all weekend every weekend. you can have the schedule email that to you. >> i think that is not only one of the major challenges facing higher education in this country but also our country and that is how we maintain a healthy lifestyles and get kids to have the strength in the judgment to say no. >> the president of southern methodist university in dallas tonight discussing that today's college students, the site of the georgia the bush presidential library on c-span's "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: what is next in egypt? samer shehata is an expert in

arab politics and focuses on the muslim brotherhood as well. we of the cairo bureau chief with us as well joining us live. we are seeing the situation unfold over the last 48 hours as president mubarak announces he is stepping down as the egyptian president. we learn the military has dissolved parliament, suspending the constitution. a kind of reaction is this getting in egypt and cairo in particular? >> this is a welcome change. the biggest concern is that the military might stay in power and stay in as a military role. this is a concrete sign that there are steps being taken to transfer to civilian authority. they also made an announcement on state television that they

would stay in power for six months or until parliamentary and presidential elections are completed. this is welcoming some of the demands the protesters wanted. host: these are some live pictures of what it looks like in tahrir square and elsewhere in cairo. overnight, we heard that the military have asked the demonstrators to leave the liberation square. some have done so and others say they want to stay. why? >> they feel the pressure is what forced mubarak to leave. they did not want to let up on the pressure until they have seen the completion of what they want. and many activists have spoken about what labor strikes are really about, higher wages, contracts, the government institutions. for them, the st. pressure worked in the first place and

this may force complacency within the armed forces. this morning, the dismantling of tents started with services and most people really feel that the street pressure needs to remain, at least partially, to maintain these changes. host: you have the interlock including your own arrest. but the last two weeks in perspective for you, personally. >> that is a hard question. it has been a roller-coaster to watch and quite amazing. most people when this started completely dismissed this. they are an expert in the suppression of dissent. they pushed the police out of the streets and were attacked by a undercover police and they

never really fell into the trap of violence. when journalists like me were being arrested and activists were being arrested, people kept coming into the streets. it seemed out of control for everyone. there was no later. when the announcement was made that mubarak was standing down, for many people it was only a first step for them. it was such an emotional thing to watch because they had done in largely peacefully. host: it is sunday afternoon in cairo. what are looking at? what is the same like? what are people talking about? >> i am in an upper-class neighborhood and life is going on as normal. everyone is debating the future

of the government, but i remember taking a taxi this morning in the man telling me that they had no money and did not know what the government would look like. everyone is debating what egypt will look like. host: leila fadel is the cairo bureau chief for the washington post. you have really added some important perspective to the c- span audience and we appreciate it very much. samer shehata is a professor in georgetown. your thoughts about what we just heard? guest: leila is very correct that some of the things we heard from the high military council today was certainly heartening and information is better than no information.

the demand to dissolve parliament is a longstanding one. i was there in november and december and they were probably the most fraudulent of irregularly fraudulent elections. the idea that the military will only be in power for six months or until elections are held is also a very good sign. there are some things that women go over very well which is the idea that this cabinet that was appointed during the crisis by mr. mubarak is going to stay. i do not think that will go over very well. many people are rightfully be suspicious of the individuals there. the repeal of the martial law that has been in existence since 1981 to engage in politics

peacefully, people certainly want that to be rescinded immediately as well. host: what happens next for now former president mubarak? guest: i'm very suspicious about whether he is in the country. as you know, the demand quickly moved from not only mubarak resigning after the first few days of protests, first by the uniformed security people and then by the mubarak thugs. the demand was he needed to be tried or held accountable, not only for the loss of life since january 25th but for 30 years of mismanaging, corruption, and someone. i do not think that people will stop in their demands for holding this autocrat accountable. host: here is one story in "the washington post" this morning.

as egyptians enter a new era on saturday, they were unanimous in one sentiment -- guest: that is exactly correct. there are speculation as to how large the fortune is. the low figure is $3 billion or the high figure of $70 billion. he had been in power since 1981. both of his sons were "successful businessmen." there has been all kinds of concern and some evidence that for the last 15-20 years that they have profited tremendously from their positions whether it has had to do with the purchasing of egyptian debt on international markets, land deals, or contracts in cooperation with existing legitimate businessmen to profit

from their power. host: they declare that mubarak should face trial and be thrown into prison. others said they prefer to let him live quietly in egypt. the most extreme said they want him dead. guest: that probably covers the range of opinion. what we will have to see is what kind of deal we have made with the military supreme council that is in power now. and mr. mubarak, whether they agree to allow him to live in this resort area in sinai in exchange for his resignation. i did not think he is -- he resigned willfully. i think they came to him on thursday night or friday morning and said that his speeches made no difference and there are still millions of people in the streets. for the sake of the army and egypt, you have to go. i do not think it was the kind of benevolent decision on his part finally seen the light.

host: in "the new york times," their rights they did it. in the end, president obama made a huge of important but unintended contribution to the diemocracy revolution. the people in the square now no one powerful thing -- they did this all by themselves. this is so important. one of the most powerful chance i heard in the score on friday night was, "the people made the regime step down." guest: that is correct. the u.s. supported the mubarak regime to the tune of millions of dollars per year in military aid from economic aid, and political cover. you have to remember that mr. mubarak made official statements to the u.s. under reversing the president since reagan. it is mind-boggling how long he was in power including several visits to the obama white house.

certainly, however, too little too late. this was an egyptian revolution. president obama is speech on friday was very well-received with regards to celebrating this momentous, historical event. there is one other thing that needs to be said. there is little question that the obama administration emphasized to the egyptian military and the necessity of not using violence on peaceful protesters. this is an egyptian revolution and there is no question about that. host: there is a similar photo aniline "the washington post." it is the cleanup of egyptian volunteers around tahrir square. let me also ask you about the muslim brotherhood. we want some background on what the brother. it is. it was formed shortly after world war ii. guest: it was formed in 1928 in

a provincial egyptian town by schoolteacher, a well-educated schoolteacher, who came from a middle-class family in the nile delta. this was a time of the british occupation, really, colonialism, feelings of nationalism, and increasing foreign intervention and encouragement in egypt politically, economically, culturally. the brotherhood was a modernist movement that wanted to develop the jet -- egypt, wanted to see social transformation and islam was the key to this. and was an islamic-based modernist movement focusing on self improvement, increasing

personal religion, and economic development, independence, national liberation, and so on. host: will they play a role? will they have a party? will they put up candidates in the upcoming election? guest: yes. they have done so for some time. the brotherhood has participated in elections since 1984. 1984, 1987, almost all boycotted in 1990. all subsequent parliament terry elections also. they have done quite well considering they were authoritarian and they were regularly rigged. the brother has always said, and they said so quite recently, that they are not interested in putting up a candidate for the office of the presidency. they are interested in parliamentary elections coming in this book council, syndicates, but not for the

office of the presidency. i think that is very important and reflect a couple of things. the brotherhood realizes that there is some trepidation a monk's some egyptian certainly in the international community -- amongst some egyptians. the brotherhood is a non- violence, peaceful, not anti- systemic, middle-class, non- clerical a base to religiously inspired political movement. they do not want to frighten either egyptians or the international community which is why they've consistently said that they are not interested in controlling the state, having one of them people become president of the country, and so on. host: is it viewed as a secular movement or more villages? guest: -- or more religious? guest: it is not viewed secular

early. they rejected the iranian model of a theocratic state where there is a supreme religious leader that is somehow the ultimate authority. no. they have long put forward their idea of a constitution, elected bodies, and the idea relatively recently in the last decade or so of a civil state as opposed to a religious state. host: from southampton, pa., on the republican line. caller: think you for taking my call. -- thank you. it is an impressive accomplishment, the non-violence of the egyptian people. the outcome remains to be seen, said espy, but i would like to address myself to the other absolute failure of american foreign policy in the middle east. it is so israel-centeric.

we have given millions of dollars in propping up mubarak to maintain the peace agreement. we have given tens of billions of dollars to jordan for the same reason. we have given israel $120 billion in direct cash and military aid. we do not even know how much that is. most people do not even know is really bonds are tax-free. guest: united states has a history, unfortunately, of supporting authoritarian regimes. the old thinking, to state it politely, is he may be an autocrat, but he is my autocrat. there is a slow realization that it is a failed policy, one not

in the interests of the united states, and a policy that does not provide any stability. when we have seen in egypt and tunisia is now released ability. these are durable regimes that use coercion and other methods to stay in power, but stability is in achieved through representative institutions. there is a brief moments in the bush administration, a very brief moment, during the freedom agenda when the bush administration was interested in promoting democracy and so on. promoting democracy by military means, which is a complete failure in iraq -- bad idea -- and also putting power on autocrats with mubarak. unfortunately, the administration did not like the outcomes of the election in a joke in 2005. -- in egypt in 2005.

hamas won legislative elections and the u.s. really wanted democracy only if the people we wanted to win when the elections. that is not what democracy is about and it came to a screeching halt. host: when the many stories can be found in "the national journal." their point beyond that to get egypt right after mubarak that the obama administration needs to understand what went wrong with george w. bush's freedom agenda and he points to this. as the president takes his turn with a line in america with democratic movements in the middle east, the short life and violent death of the 2005 arab spring serves as an important cautionary tale in understanding what went wrong then. guest: the bush administration was only interested in pushing

for reform and more political openness as long as the candidates that we wanted to do well in elections won. as soon as islamists won, reform came to an end. we have to support principles as opposed to people. we have to support free and fair elections, a constitutional system, a rule of law, and someone and not individual candidates. host: samer shehata is a professor of georgetown. he has taught at columbia, and why you, and the american university in cairo. from pittsburgh, good morning. caller: you kind of already answered my question that i have for you. you stated that the idea is to have the -- not an islamic

nation but a civil one. i want to say something about the previous caller. the peace agreement that jimmy carter had with saddat in, goodness, i forgot. who is that agreement? mubarak was the new leader. they camped piece for a long time -- they kept peace. israel asked for one thing, the right to exist. i feel that if the other arab countries would give them a right to exist, anyone in the world would ask for the right to exist. what is wrong with that? i do not understand why this

cannot be resolved. host: that was the reagan-sadat agreement signed in 1979. guest: the arab states, quite importantly, i think in 2002 there is the meeting in beirut and it was called the abdallah proposal. they put forward the idea that of the arab states would recognize israel and normalize relations with israel if they would give up occupied palestinian land and go to the 1967 borders. it was a historic, historic move. at the time we were talking about khaddafi, saddam hussein still in a rock, and this is all of the arab states recognizing

israel, the end of the state of war, normalizing relations economically and otherwise if israel would simply every to uphold -- simply agree to uphold national law with the west bank and gaza. gaza is still technically international law. they have the border as well as the air above and so on. this idea of recognizing the state of israel and allowing them to exist is something that has been put on the table for quite some time and even before that in terms of the united nations resolution 242 in 1967, the land for peace idea, which had universal acceptance. it is more complicated than if only the arabs would recognize israel. the primary impediment is the only go occupation of the

palestinian lands -- is the illegal capitation -- occupation and so on. host: twitter.com/cspanwj. there are many u.s. businesses in egypt. do you see any changes with the operations and/or business practices? guest: that is a difficult question. certainly in the short term there is some uncertainty and life is only beginning to get back to normal, as it were. this is not a revolution against united states or about the peace treaty with israel. this is a domestic affair. this is about removing an autocrat. if there is the case that there are businesses that supported directly the american machine --

the mubarak regime, that is a different matter. but with regards to the american university in cairo. host: and you have taught there. guest: yes, and where my wife graduated from. there'll be no negative consequences whatsoever but it will take some time, of course, for americans to go back to egypt as tourists once stability is established. i do not think this will have any negative consequences for american businesses with regard to conducting activities in egypt. host: we are talking with samer shehata, on professor in georgetown university. there is the issue of the muslim brotherhood that came up thursday. here's an excerpt from that hearing. >> the term "muslim brother

heard" is an umbrella term for a variety -- "muslim brotherhood." in egypt, they have issued violence and have decried -- eshewed violence. they have pursued social ends, political order in egypt, etc. >> i am interested in their non- violence side, which was talking about. >> in other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the muslim brotherhood. there is no overarching agenda particularly in pursuit of the violence, at least internationally. host: samer shehata, your response? guest: it is not primarily a

secular group. they are a religiously based group. if you look at their agenda, a great deal of it has to do a secular bread-and-butter issues, right? bread and butter politics with it the economics, employment, corruption, economic development, and so on. i think the gentleman corrected himself. yes, the brotherhood has denounced the violence for decades and certainly they are opposed to our qaeda -- al qaeda. they believe in things like peaceful elections to produce change. they have denounced the brother her daughter number of occasions. -- the brotherhood on a number of occasions. then there is the idea of franchise that fits with chapters in other countries. this is a mistake. there are other islamist

organizations like hamas or the constitutional movement in kuwait. they have ideological links, they are not franchises or branch outfits by any means. they have developed in a local context and have dealt with the issues at stake in the different countries which are very different than egypt. they are autonomous groups that are acting and reacting to their local situations. this idea of a franchise or one big umbrella organization, i think, is a mistake. argentina.ndro from caller: good morning. buenos dias. the media keeps saying that the muslim brotherhood are pushing these people to go into power.

they're giving them a reputation to live up to. they should tone down. this is like the christian coalition in the u.s. for the most part, they're not going to take over and change the world. the outcome will never satisfy the u.s. or some of the other nations. the other thing i will bring out is some people are saying that social media has done this. 5% of people in asia have telephone lines. the internet and all of these things do not exist all that much. mr. friedman is very biased, i have found him.

his commentary also has a hidden agenda. host: think you for calling from argentina. guest: there were a lot of different points that he put forward. the first point, the role of the muslim brotherhood in egyptian politics, he is correct. the brotherhood is an organic part of the egyptian political system. they have a great deal of legitimacy and they engage in social service provision whether it beat medical clinics, educational institutions, charity work, and so on, but they are not by any means the majority in the egyptian political spectrum. it is quite diverse. this was a youth revolution. the brotherhood participated in a small and late way. this has nothing to do with the muslim brotherhood. these were youth groups.

the national association for change and some of the new political parties like the democratic front, the tomorrow party, and so on. the egyptian political spectrum has a great deal of diversity. labor groups in the coming time will also plan important role. the brother heard is part of the egyptian political system -- the brotherhood is part of the egyptian political system but it is not now and will not be a dominant pair -- player. host: samer shehata, a professor in georgetown. one email. "my question is, is this not a revolution part of the new paradigm that hoists turkey as a model for arabs to follow instead of the islamists visions?" would they take a page out of

the turkey's justice and truth party? guest: good questions. antecedence that were like the bell for party, the virtue party, which came to an end as a result of military occupation. they have performed and now the turkish party is a fully democratic political movement with a great deal of legitimacy and organic ties to turkish society. they have won two elections and have pushed for reforms having to deal with limiting the role of the military, trying to move turkey towards the european union, and so on. the muslim brotherhood, i think, is not as progressive as the party in turkey and there are other groups that are more

progressive with regards to full equality between muslims and christians, the role of women at the highest levels of political authority. i would hope that the muslim brotherhood transforms even further and fully book comes -- fully book comes a liberal group in that sense. host: muhamed from flushing, new york. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a first-time caller. sometimes the terminology can be misleading. muslim government, islamic brotherhood. it is like trying to compare the iranian version of islam and the sunni version. the mass number other had is a group in egypt and they are political -- the muslim brotherhood is a group in egypt.

the traditional islamic government is different than the structure. the imam in the political structure is different. it is different. since then, we have seen a government that is modeled to that fashion. host: response? guest: there are major differences between iran and sunni islam and with regards to the iranian revolution and the great role that clerics played in that revolution and subsequent politics in iran. this idea of the role of the cleric, that the clerical authority is the ultimate authority, is something that is absent in sunni islam and

something that is not found in many currents of islamist thought. there's a major difference between what happened in 1979 and in iran and what happened in 2011 in egypt. this was not clerkly -- clerically based. the comparison or the analogy is fraught with difficulty. host: this is speculation of course, but if we had not invaded iraq, do you think there would have been a similar revolution there? guest: i did not say the bush freedom agenda that had too much or anything to do with this. this is a domestic issue with regards to the underlying economic problem, 20% of the population in poverty, another 20% close to poverty, talking about the mubarak regime, increasing corruption.

the interesting question is the tunisian gentleman, the 26 year- old in tunis, if the tunisian revolution had not occurred, would the egyptian revolution had transpired? that is a very interesting historical question. host: our last call from los angeles. about one minute left. caller: item hope you are familiar with the agenda setting effects, that the more an issue is covered the more they will place importance on it. but the coverage that the muslim brotherhood is getting on some stations, in particular fox news. i watch a lot of networks and i see that they are discussed frequently. thank you very much.

guest: the caller is completely correct. not only does it over represent the threats, but it over represents all the muslim brotherhood in egyptian politics. there is not as much attention to the muslim brotherhood in discussions in egypt, the arabic satellite stations, and so on. there is in hysteria and a tremendous misunderstanding. there are all kinds of false analogies and mess around the 1979 revolution and what happened in egypt are fundamentally different. the caller is completely correct. i would hope, and i think, that the highest ranking officials in the land would realize that egypt in 2011 is not iran in 1979 and the muslim brotherhood is nothing like ayatollah khamenei. khamenei.