the nation's federal courts. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: debate over federal spending for the remainder of this fiscal year kicked off in the house yesterday with more than 400 amendments filed under an open rule that allows any amendment as long as it was published at a time and does not add to the deficit. debate continues today through thursday and our coverage, of course, will be here on c-span. the republican bill will cut $60 billion from non-defense discretionary spending, most coming from domestic programs. we want to hear your thoughts. a divided like a little bit differently. conservatives, moderates, liberals, and of course, independents as well. here are the proposed spending cuts --

here is "the wall street journal" with yesterday's debate. they say this --

on that open rule, "the wall street journal" says -- joining us on the phone is humberto sanchez, budget and appropriations reporter for "national journal." how will it work for the rest of the debate? guest: it looks like they are managing to hone down the number of amendments. they worked through the like -- night last night until 1:30 a.m. and they had gone through many sections of the bill. going through the bill section by section and closing the section after they pass through

reading those sessions. and they seem to have read -- they are in the homeland security section at the moment and last night only about 15 amendments or offered. host: what does that mean? 400 are published. not all of those are coming to the floor? guest: i think that does mean that. again, today is a new day and maybe more people will be geared up to offer amendments, is not late into the night, requested to offer them. while democrats were speaking on the bill, chairman rogers and ranking member or working on a list of amendments to try to hone down the policy amendments that were offered. host: what amendments showed viewers be watching out for today? guest: i guess the big one today will be the amendment from jim jordan, chairman of the republican study committee.

it looks to cut about $20 billion from in additional funding. he is looking to slash about 11% from congress that a budget from the legislative branch appropriations bill and about 5.5% in 9-security discretionary spending -- with the exception of 8 to israel. it's got an amendment to cut funding for the f-35 air strike. there are several defense amendments offered yesterday. none of them pass. will there be more today? guest: know, that section of the bill is closed. no more defense amendments. that was the biggest and then the debate -- debate yesterday after the 7:00 vote. that is a big one that is really a debate between g pawlenty and pratt whitney. du pont de -- g.e. would make

the alternate engine because the fact that there is competition would hopefully drive down prices on that defense contract where as supporters of the primary engine, made by pratt and whitney, said it is an unnecessarily expensive boondoggle. host: are members expected to work late in the night tonight as well? the debate goes through thursday. guest: it is probably the case. from what i understand they are looking at the final package tomorrow by 3:00 thursday. it host: then what happens next? guest: then it goes to the senate. but next week both are out -- chambers are out for presidents to weekend so they will take up the week of february 28. and they will have to either pass this measure or come up with some compromise or do some short-term c.r. before march 4,

which is the deadline of the current one or else the government will shut down. host: from yesterday's debate, give us a sense of where both moderate republicans and democrats are coming down on this legislation? guest: you know, it looks like -- i guess the upshot really is that appropriators are not anxious to change this package very much. appropriators typically are not -- after they negotiate the terms of the bill, but typically send out any amendments. that is kind of what happened so far. there are a couple of things here and there that have been accepted, but for the most part they have opposed attempts to cut more or shifting money between subcommittees'. host: you reported yesterday that the president issued a veto threat in a statement.

when did he do it and why? what is he saying? guest: he issued the veto threat yesterday evening. and he is taking the democratic tax, which he believes the bill -- instead of a scalpel -- undermines national security. national security initiatives by cutting where he thinks there shouldn't be any cuts. host: humberto sanchez with "national journal," appreciate it. we want to hear from you -- conservative, moderate, liberal, what do you think about the amount of money proposed for cuts and remaining of the fiscal year? that brings us to september 30, and then october 1, the 2012 budget kicks in. this is how we are doing the phones --

there have been two budget battles going on. we have the remainder of money to keep the government running this year -- the continuing resolution that the house republicans are debating, their proposal on the floor and the house this week. the senate has to take up as well. on monday, we saw president obama unveiled his 2012 budget proposal. if you go to c-span.org, we have a budget page available. you can look back c-span.org /budget. with events we have been covering -- hearings. all of it can be found there. we also have a list of amendments for this 2011 spending bill debated in the house. if you are interested in who has to file amendments and what issue, go to gop.gov, and there

you can find a list of amendments. upper marlboro, maryland. libya is a moderate. what do you think? caller: i think there should be moderation and all things. part of the problem is half of the legislators are working on the budget cuts -- and the other half should be working on the jobs bill. it is a no-brainer, if you put people back to work it will make a dent in the deficit. 15 million people unemployed? they would be paying taxes, federal and state taxes, buying appliances and spending money. and another thing that irritates me, when they talk about entitlements. i worked 30 years for my civil service retirement, standing out in the rain and cold and sleet and snow, five degrees, sometimes below zero, to go to work for 30 years. i earned my retirement. nobody is giving me anything. host: are you a moderate democrat, republican, how have you voted?

caller: i am moderate. i think intent -- conservative and liberal. these are just labels. the congress and the senate should be doing what is best for the american people. host: you said this is about jobs. caller: to work on jobs. because before the election the president put forward a proposal for an infrastructure banks at $50 billion and it passed in the house, i think, but defeated in the senate. there were economists who said that would create 5 million new jobs. host: what about the 2011 spending proposal? here is "the washington times." in " speaker boehner this said -- it quotes speaker boehner -- he says if some of the jobs are lost under the 2011 spending proposal -- caller: that is not true. from the rachel madow show,

labor department, only 58,000 jobs created in the last two years. that is an out and out lie. host: he is talking about the federal government. caller: i know what he is talking about. only 58,000 jobs created in the federal government the last two years. they have statistics from the labor department. host: let us go to rob, conservative from maryland. caller: one thing i wanted to mention with the lady that called before me, they keep referring to entitlement programs -- social security and medicare are not entitlement programs. they are like an insurance policy. and entitlement programs would be something like welfare, or agriculture department subsidies where a farmer is getting paid to not grow something. those programs are not paid in by those farmers. those are entitlements. but the main thing i see about the budget that bothers me, is

there are no defense department cuts. barack obama raised the defense department budget 20%. there is no defense department cuts -- actually a rise in that budget. about 1% of the population that is active duty and maybe another 1% that is reserves -- in the reserves or in the national guard. it seems like a large portion of the budget goes to defense. every other department is taking cuts. we have to be more selective in how we use the military and maybe not get involved in things we should not get involved in and that also should be cut. in some of studies it shows that over 40% of the federal tax dollar is going to some military program, beneficiary, contractor, in some way.

there is no cut in that. host: did you watch the debate at all last night? caller: i did not get a chance. i was out last night. host: here is a little bit from the house floor with me -- with republican arizona congressman jeff blake, a proposal to cut $80 million from the pentagon that a budget. >> i realize the amount of savings and the amendment is a relatively small compared to the overall defense budget. but i think the point has to be made here, that the defense budget is not sacrosanct. we can't say if the defense, it is all good. there is no waste here. we can't cut any. so it is important to look for ways we can actually say. in fiscal year 2010, more than $1 trillion was spent on discretionary spending. the department of dispense receive more than 508 billion. certainly the federal agency that requires book -- the federal agency that has the largest budget, there is going

to be waste and deficiencies. this is a great place to start. host: here is "the wall street journal" with a debate over these the defense and then it's. it says -- one small cut to get rid of advisory commissions -- the flake amendment. another big defense spending fight looms today. the alternative energy will be built near a part of mr. boehner's district.

other defense spending cut amendments defeated tuesday would have cut money for the v- 22 osprey helicopter, grants for innovation and research and development of alternative energy sources. that is "the wall street journal" this morning. texas. barbara is a liberal. what do you think? caller: thank you for the spirit i have always been calling in on the independent line although i am more liberal. i don't have a party affiliation. is this done to accommodate the tea party? host: we thought we would make

some of this way because we are hearing sort of the lines over this legislation drawn and little bit differently. you have some moderate democrats who might vote for some of these cuts and then you have not republicans who voiced criticism -- you have moderate republicans to voice criticism about the amount of money republicans want to cut. caller: i " -- hope you keep it. i watched as much as i could of the house budget committee and i want you to know this tea party is scary. those guys just elected and think they are running the world are so rude, so ignorant about basic economics. they don't know anything about budgeting. they think you can take eight years to build up a huge debt and deficit and interest payments but interest -- instantly they want obama to come up with a balanced budget. it is crazy. they should not be in public office unless they go back to

kindergarten. they are playing to the cameras. still running an election. they just pander to these tea party kooks repeating the same old lines and doing nothing construction. they were so rude to the budget director. they would not let him answer questions. they kept interrupting him. they used their time to play to the camera. host: do you think something needs to be done about addressing the deficit situation? caller: of course. and president obama is doing it. and they sat there and said he does not even have a plan. they have in their hands a 270- page budget proposal. these people are not qualified to be in congress and they are really scary. they just hammered and hammered against of the budget director and he maintained his cool. host: you are referring to the house budget committee who heard testimony from omb director jack lew and recover the hearing. go to c-span.org.

the caller referred to tea party supporters. sean duffy, who got backing from tea party voters in his race for the seventh district in wisconsin, that was the former david obey's seat, he was on the floor yesterday. >> two years ago this congress voted to spend nearly $1 trillion on the stimulus money. they said we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity. two years later we are well aware of that borrowing and spending does not lead to economic prosperity, growth, or sustainable jobs. we know it comes from the private sector -- people who invest in businesses and ideas and from there they expand and grow. that is how we create jobs in this great country. now we are stuck with a $14 trillion debt. this year we will borrow $1.50 trillion. more borrowing, more spending, is going to lead to job crushing taxes and passing this debt on to the next generation. it is unacceptable.

i am encouraged that we are working on sending an obligated stimulus money back to the fed to weaken the down our debt. host: "washington times" -- seattle, washington. moderate. moderate republican, democrat, what do you think? caller: i and a logical independent.

all you need to do is take defense department, consolidated into one uniformed -- unified armed force. it would save tons of money instead of having different divisions. also, make corporations and the culture rich pay their fair share. and i am an independent -- the constitution never called for two parties, elephants and a donkey, that is not in the constitution. host: here is "the baltimore sun." liberal leaning economic policy institute estimated as many as 800,000 jobs could be lost under the republican proposal. and also says that even beyond the cuts in the spending plan, some republicans are insisting on others -- more than 400 amendments filed by lawmakers as the house started debate on the plan.

illinois. max, a conservative. caller: i unconcerned about the budget, but i also believe that -- i am concerned about the budget but also believe that we need to support the tea party because they are doing a wonderful job. when it comes to obama, he needs to take ownership. he cannot blame it on bush anymore. besides that, i feel that when it comes to harry reid and nancy pelosi, all they are doing is tearing our country up with the sweetheart deals behind closed doors. i believe the human services should be cut because they did not provide any real support for other people --

host: can you keep the phone a little closer to your mouth because you are going in and out. heinlein -- listen through your phone -- i want to show you what nancy pelosi had to say on the floor yesterday about the republican proposal. >> the republican proposal cuts $800 per students in the maximum pell grant award. thousands of teachers would lose their jobs, and in your neighborhood, class size could increase. is a statement of our values to diminish our efforts to create green jobs and fight disease, innovation? $1.3 billion in this bill -- it cuts $1.3 billion in investments to spur a clean energy economy of the future. it cuts more than 1.3 million for cancer and other disease research. in terms of innovation and

education, the president's budget is a commitment to competitiveness. this legislation is not. is it a statement of our values to destroy jobs and undermine investments in our roads, schools, bridges, to rebuild america? tens of thousands of new construction jobs would be lost and 76 projects to upgrade our roads in your districts and bridges in 40 states would be canceled. i mentioned earlier what the general contractor said about creating millions of jobs in the industry and 10 million more jobs indirectly. is it a statement of our values to diminish the public safety of our neighborhoods? there would be up to 3000 fewer cops on the beat in your neighborhood and 2400 fewer firefighters on the job in our communities coast to coast. host: max, in illinois, a conservative. caller: when it comes to nancy

pelosi, i do not have much use for her. i feel she has done a real disservice to our country because the way she spends, spends, spends -- her and her democrats, harry reid. host: let us put politics aside before a second and just talk about the arguments there. are you concerned that if these cuts were to go through that they might have that impact in your community, if it is true what nancy pelosi and other liberals are arguing, that's the this could mean less cops and less money for education? caller: i think it is just trying to scare the public. when it comes right down to it, we all have to kind of tight in our belts. that is the way it is. and when it comes to obama -- i think he loves -- no real transparency but he loves the care hours, though. he loves to be on the camera every day. but when it comes to bush -- they blame bush but he needs to take some ownership of what is going on, too. host: liberal from springfield,

virginia. you are on the air. caller: this is what is going on. once again, the tea party and the republican party, driving this country down to hell. the republican party won't cut military and the funding for providing bombs and missiles but they will cut food formulas for children, education, all of these things, but they will pay for the tax cut for the rich and the bp oil companies. this is craziness. host: what would you cut? caller: i would go into the military and cut the bombs and missiles and everything. i was reading on the internet,

that the military power that the u.s. has, more than any president could use half of that power because there would not be any world left for us to live in. host: let us hear from a moderate in washington, d.c. go ahead. caller: i would just like to say that finally the hypocrisy in washington is blatantly clear. for 10 years we were unable to discuss the military budget. spending on this war. immediately when anybody wanted to cut the military budget, cut back on this war effort, they were labeled unpatriotic -- this is not something we can do in a time of war. i am wondering if our chinese creditors are saying to us, you can't spend money wildly on war anymore. because somebody has obviously decided it is ok said late to

start speaking truth. you can't spend on an unfunded war effort. for 10 years, everything in this war, the two wars of aggression, of occupation, have been funded through supplemental bills, bridge funds, an emergency spending. host: here is "the washington times" on the debate in the house. the bill includes significant reductions in domestic programs -- it would

new york. charlie is a conservative. good morning. caller: as a conservative, i notice that the only spending liberals are opposed to it is spending to defend america. we owe $14 trillion. the you know how long it would take you in your normal speaking voice to account for one to $1 trip -- one trillion? host: how long? caller: over 30,000 years.

and we all $14 trillion. host: as a conservative, what are you -- caller: we have to do more than just cut funding from planned parenthood and npr. we need to eliminate the department of education, the department of energy, the department of transportation. and as a conservative, what i would do, i would temporarily cut funding for the state department. the state department is nothing but a cesspool for liberal verminou. host: you did not say anything about entitlements -- caller: paul ryan has a great program for reforming social security and medicaid. but we need to do more than that. host: what do you make that 12% of the budget are those programs that you just talked about, that

is discretionary spending? the rest of the budget, two- thirds is medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. -- caller: it is not mandatory spending. it is mandatory because congress made it mandatory and congress can make get un-mandatory. there is nothing in the constitution that says congress cannot reform what it passed in the past. host: pennsylvania. reed is a liberal. go ahead. caller: good morning, america, how are you? what we need to do is cut welfare for the wealthy and corporations who pay -- two- thirds of corporations pay zero taxes. we need to cut defense. we are spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined. we also need to cut the illegal, l. moral war machine --

immoral war machine. we are only creating blow back. talking about blow back -- we need to cut the aid to israel, which is creating more blow back because of the apartheid -- free palestine. don't balance the budget on the back of the elderly and poor. host: war on president obama's veto threat of the house republican proposal for this fiscal year. the associated press president obama is warning congress and not to submit a proposal for cutting in this fiscal year. he vows to veto anything he finds this option -- disruptive. he says there is no reason he and congress cannot agree on measures to keep funding through the fall. he sits down today at the white house with the senate democratic leadership to talk about the 2012 budget proposal and the

republican cuts. this is "the hill" newspaper on the 2012 proposal. kent conrad faulted obama for not taking on entitlement reform. ohio. moderate. going a bit caller: i am getting back to the 2011 budget. what amazes me, we are talking about the fiscal 2012 budget. talking about 10 years out. whenever you hear a politician say something, a savings for 10 years out, that is -- right there. it's 2011, i believe the democrats were in charge of that budget. we are halfway through fiscal

2011 and we are still working on it. everything needs to be looked at. every government program that exists, i believe it is abused by people. veterans of use the va, farmers abuse agriculture. big businesses abuse tap -- tax loopholes. of the poor abuse the system. everything has to be looked at and frozen. and that's all i have to say. host: in "the wall street journal" opinion pages, here is a stick -- small budget cuts add up.

they point out that the united states institute of peace is one area where both upgrade they can make cuts. -- where they both agree that they can make cuts. they say --

that's jason -- republican from utah and anthony wiener, a democrat from new york, writing in yesterday's "wall street journal." on the floor yesterday talking about the 2011 spending proposal and he took issue reducing money for the cops program but increasing for nasa. >> do i like the idea we have to take from nasa space exploration -- i do not know any of the crime statistics on mars and i am interested but it is a bad choice. do any of you like space exploration? so do i? in a way, i am pleading -- playing the game, too, taking from one place and giving to the other but it is in the interest of all of us to set these priorities straight. host: anthony wiener talking about his amendment to take money from nasa to put it toward

the program being cut. the conservative from new hampshire. caller: ok -- i do not know where to start. first of all, we need to reinvent government. private companies have often forced to undergo reinventing themselves just in order to stay in business. but when a government program is inefficient or does not provide good service, it does not go out of business. for that reason i think we need to outsource implementation of almost all government programs. because if you got competition in the private sector -- first of all, you will get tax revenue from the private business, and second, you will get a much better level of service and for less money. for example, the united states postal service -- we could sell that off to a new joint venture between ups and fedex and we would have much better service, i think. and all those buildings will then generate tax revenue for

us. workers have more freedom to work will run between positions. i know personally there are federal workers who are going to stay in their current positions forever because they have a "career path. " even though some other area of the federal government would be more -- would meet their desires and interest. host: right. that was burris, a conservative from nashua, new hampshire. liberal. john, florida. caller: how are you? host: do well. what are your thoughts on the 2011 spending proposal? caller: i would like to see massive budget cut in military spending. america has in no enemies in the world. they are fiction. if we do have enemies we created them just as america brought 9/11 on itself due to its

military activities across the globe, the military bases, the death of millions of people over the decades. the idea that we are in the middle east to do good and spread democracy is, of course, a lie. since 9/11, a paltry 14 americans were killed the to terrorism. i would like to see us doing away with homeland security. that is another ridiculous spending. host: "houston chronicle" frontpage, courtesy of newseum. president obama putting the medal of freedom on the 41st commander in chief. he gave the medal of freedom to the former president as well as several others. here is a moment from that ceremony. >> as a decorated navy pilot to his years in the white house as the 41st president of the united states, president george

herbert walker bush has led a life marked by profound commitment to serving others. as president, he upheld a the american value of liberty during a time of renewal and promise. as a private citizen, he has united americans in times of crisis, lending as tireless efforts to men and women whose lives have been offended by disaster. -- upended by disaster. he has served our nation as a tremendous force of good and we promise of open to his unwavering devotion to our country and our world. [applause] host: if you want to watch all of yesterday's ceremony go to c- span.org. you can watch it there. go to the video library, a right hand corner. here is "the atlanta journal constitution." below the fold of this morning they show the president getting a medal of freedom also to john lewis, democrat of georgia, on

tuesday. and also he gave the metal to civil rights activist sylvia mendez. this is "the orange county register" with that story. conn. ron is a moderate. what do you think of the republican proposal for funding for the rest -- rest of 2011? caller: i have not studied the the whole thing. caught have not -- have not been able to get extreme information on. by and large in favor of a lot of it. i know it is going to cut up a lot of sacred cows and it can't help that. what one person sees as unnecessary program, another will say that is vital. the reason i wanted to call -- everyone seems to want to spear

the defense department. i am retired united states navy. my daughter is in regular active duty navy, career, and my late father was a career submariner for 20 years. there are some things in defense that if you cut them, you cost lives. we have been down that road before. during world war ii -- before world war ii, a lot of passes in the country, congress and senate would not fund a lot of military spending -- it cost thousands of lives, after the japanese attack on pearl harbor we did not have the weapons. the aircraft were no match for the japanese and it cost a lot of lives. my father was on a submarine and the torpedoes did not work -- you would get a perfect shot to torpedo a japanese ship and torpedoes would not explode and it happen over and over and over again. it took two years to figure it out. why?

congress had not spent the money on the research for torpedo development. host: in other news this morning, here is the front page of "usa today." egyptian group less demand. at the top leaders of the protest movement that toppled the regime of mubarak say they will demand a military move more quickly to create an interim civilian government -- also below that, you can see a picture of cbs reporter lara logan who was assaulted on this past friday in egypt when she was trying to cover the story. "the wall street journal" reports on what happens. she suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating after being separated from her crew in the midst of a crowd in a egypt --

she is home now. other newspapers reported she was on a plane the next day, saturday, out of egypt. baltimore, maryland. mark on the conservative line. caller: i wanted to come from the perspective of employees of department of defense department and navy. i listened to the budget debate yesterday and i just wanted to say that we have been living with this continuing resolution all year long and we are facing government furloughs, but, you know, across the board, i realize instead of my colleagues that we all need to tighten our belts and the government operates on a use or lose system every year and every year you ask for more money than you did the previous year. and these cuts proposed are cuts on an already inflated budget. it is an already-inflated --

host: some of the other cuts been talked about is heating forlow income residents and also to eliminate public broadcasting -- heating for lower-income residents and also eliminate public broadcasting funding. and "the washington times" has this headline -- kay, you are a liberal. you are the last call for this. caller: the caller two callers back, i want to thank and for his service and his family. i listened to the remarks -- they are not trying to cut the budget. it is for research, where the money is being spent. what they are trying to do is cut wasteful spending in areas that are not needed. there are two projects, the

engine and also some amphibious vehicle they have been working on for 30 years and it is not going anywhere but it creates jobs in certain districts. the home heating oil thing -- i was angry about it at first but i reacted before learning more. again, we have to remember two years ago we were paying almost $4 a gallon. an edgy prices have gone up. now that the prices have gone down and at least that's got halfway, oil is going to be available for lower income people. i will be honest, i make way below $250,000 a year and i of willing to let my taxes go up to help balance the budget. i did not want to see any more bases in afghanistan. there are cuts that need to be made and will lead to do my part. host: you may be interested, and others, in hearings today on

capitol hill. defense secretary gates will be before the house armed services committee, with congressman howard mckeon of california, he will be there along with admiral michael mullen, and they will be testifying about the defense authorization bill. i am sure these issues will come up. 10:00 a.m. live coverage on c- span 3. also related to the budget, treasury secretary to the geithner will be on the hill before the house budget committee talking about his agency's spending levels for 2012. live coverage also on c-span 3 at 2:00 p.m. today. coming up about 45 minutes we will talk about the president's 2012 budget proposal with a democrat from wisconsin did but first, the new chairman of the american conservative union, al cardenas. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> when i was sworn in as president i pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term. the budget i am proposing today meets that pledge. >> president obama but since converse a $3.70 trillion budget that would reduce the deficit by $1.10 trillion of the next 10 years. this week, here the details of the administration, including cabinet officials, and watch reaction from house and senate members online at the c-span video library -- search, watch, click, and share any time. it is washington your way. >> it is a three-day presidential weekend on american history tv on c-span 3. live from the truth in little white house in key west, what it is like to be related to an american president.

candid conversations with descendants of four coupons as president. monday, historians, an associate, on president kennedy and his place in history, the lessons learned and applications today. and the smithsonian's national portrait gallery to learn the art and politics of presidential portraits. on c-span 3 all weekends every weekend. for the complete three-day holiday schedule go to c- span.org/history and to have the schedules e-mail to you, hit this c-span alert button. >> it is a three-day prison as the weekend on book tv on c- span2. on "after words." hard 1966 interview with dr. martin luther king, jr., launched the career of keresan said. for story on kleiber the ranks on what was a profession dominated by white males. and an examination of the way governments are using the internet to maintain political power. and stephanie koontz looks at

the feminine mystique and the birth of the women's movement. sign up for book tv alert. >> "washington journal" continues. host: collected a week ago from today, al cardenas is the new chairman of the american conservative union. what your goals? guest: obviously want to be successful. we came off of the most successful cpa,c for as we ever had. almost 11,000 activists. lots of panels. most of them presidential wannabes for this coming cycle and a lot of exciting participants. our goal is to continue that success. you know , you knowin my new chairmanship, we are entering into a third phase of the conservative movement. it started as an intellectual movement with high-tech and bill buckley and others i admired as

a college student, an intellectual and college movement, take into a retail level by ronald reagan, and a socialist -- social conservatism, the three legs of the stool, a conservative, and now into a third phase -- getting out of the beltway. we have tea party activists from around the country. we have regional and state policy counsel springing up with wonderful conservative content. so this third phase is to go out there to america and capturing all the talents and enthusiasm and bringing them under the umbrella of what heretofore was mostly beltway-centered organizations. host: are you concerned with the cuts being proposed by republicans in the house for this remainder fiscal year, and largely being driven by tea party candidates, now members of congress, saying we need to cut even more? $100 billion less than what the president proposed, about $60 billion less in 2010 funding

levels. are you concerned that that amount of cutting could have an impact on what sort of candidates you can get to run, and also that democrats will have a leg up if they can go to their constituents and say, they cut cops, they cut schools, they did all of these things? but guest: our job is not in the political process, per say, as much as it is persuading americans what the principles are to guide is in the right direction. there is no doubt that what transpired in america, frankly under both parties leadership, has gotten us to a place we cannot be at. unfortunately, drastic measures are needed because a more reasonable measures have not been taken spending-wise for over a decade. obviously, i think our organization coincides with this spirit of the tea party movement, a visceral spirit that says enough is enough, we can't afford this and we cannot

continue to dig a deeper hole. the $100 billion or so requested spending cuts are tough. normally it is a tougher cut that you would normally want out of this $3.70 trillion that the president is proposing. only $1.20 trillion comes from this course of responding. you are talking about a 10% cut. if you are talking to households in america, 10% is pretty much it is what most households have had to cut to make ends meet. the american public is ok with a 10% cut, frankly. the devil is in the details. and the problems people in congress are having is, what do i cut? people in the midwest don't like farm subsidies cut, people in northeast don't like the oil subsidies cut. everybody has their own sacred cow, so to speak. but if we are going to get things right we cannot have sacred cows. host: you were born in cuba.

guest: i was. host: came to the united states at 12. as a hispanic, are you concerned the cuts will hurt the hispanic community and that could hurt your chances for bringing in conservatives into the republican tent? guest: i've long felt that what is good for america is good for hispanics, and vice versa. a number of conservative hispanics got elected. in the old days it used to be said you have to be monolithic in your thinking to attract minorities into a particular movement. the conservative movement has always taken the position is here is what our principles are, they stood the test of time, and everyone, if we are good enough at this, everyone will eventually understand. it is past cycle we had conservative hispanics elected as governors of new mexico, nevada, u.s. senator from florida, and a number of members of congress -- hispanics from the state of washington, idaho,

and texas, who here to for never had a conservative, not to mention a hispanic elected to office. we are proud of that and we think hispanics like everyone else are worried about the over the top spending habits with country has gotten into. host: you mentioned cpac and c- span covered a lot of the speeches of the weekend. michelle bachmann, who heads up the tea party caucus in talked to activists about the influence of the tea party but also remaining true to the social issues that conservatives care about. let's listen to what she had to say. >> we would be wise to recall and not forget that for all conservative coalition to be victorious in 2012, it will take every one of us and then some blend together to bring the the three legs of this conservative stool together -- the fiscal

conservative leg, the national security leg, and a social conservative leggett, to work together. we cannot shun each other for 2012. [applause] the structural integrity and the political appeal is not only rooted in this fiscal discipline but the social values and philosophy of peace through strength and i believe this is as valid today as it has been for the last 35 years sumwalt would have you believe, however, that the rise -- it 35 years. some would have you believe, however, that the rise of the tea party that conservatives stand for one thing and nothing more, and that is reducing our deficit and shrinking government. while that is absolutely vital and important, i strongly disagree that that is all there is. host: is there a tension between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives?

guest: has always been tension between libertarians on social issues and social conservatives. remember, our widest common denominator are always fiscal issues and that keeps us together. we can't win without that brought common denominator. however, she is right. we have to adhere to the three legs of the school principals while at the same time keeping our doors open to the larger common denominator. there are libertarians and the crowd. there were libertarians at cpac. they coexisted with social conservatives and when we did the straw ballot, we not just measured through a preferred for president but we measured issues. 85% of those there, whether they were social conservatives are not listed fiscal issues at -- as their top priority. having said all that, we still adhered to rick and's principals -- she got it right. and that is how we are marching. host: there was a "washington times" front-page story last week before cpac gather that

there were fissures over gays being welcomed. gop proud, one of those groups, called incompatible. you recently came out -- where are you whether not this group is welcome at cpac events as part of the american conservative union? guest: we will always be inclusive in regards to comes to cpac -- regardless of your ethnic origin, gender, color of your skin or orientation. you are always welcomed as an individual. the challenge is in our participating organizations, is are you willing to -- for the principals or not. if not, your individual members are welcome to come but not your organization. we will go through a vetting process. we have not decided yet who will get invited to the 2012 cpac not. we wanted to organizations that

adhere to our beliefs get invited. that includes go proud or anyone else. they will go through a vetting process. if you are a group -- nothing to do with your orientation -- if you are a group of straight couples and the advocate of gay marriage that is not in the scope of what we think the three legs of the school of the movement are. it had nothing to do with your orientation, but the principles you advocate. there are a number of gays in america who did not advocate the days in the military issue or gay marriage, so they will fit into the tens of what we stand for. it is not that easy. it is complicated. but we will do our best to be inclusive, while at the same time adhering to the principle that ronald reagan dreamed about and we have been following. host: you mentioned there were a lot of presidential wannabes at the event. one that was not there, one speculated that he might run, is the governor of new jersey, chris christie.

guest: he is agreed to a leader. he is a blood speaker. america needs a lot more of that. we have all been impressed. he is taking it easy. he is not rush into the limelight. he is doing his job as governor of new jersey -- a hard job, as it is. as you know, it is a state saddled with debt, high unemployment, and needs his attention. where he to become a candidate he would be well respected and certainly be part of the fray. i don't see any indications from him that he is ready to step out of his current job. host: some say his event at the american enterprise institute -- time to do big things -- the speech he will be giving, as part of an effort to sort of roll out some sort of national identity. he is going to be talking reform issues that will serve as the foundation of his february budget address, and he believes reductions in spending are the key to restore fiscal health and fuelling long-term growth and republican and democrat leaders must be prepared to tackle the toughest issues. we will be covering this.

go to c-span.org to find out when we will be carrying -- airing this. politico reporting this morning that the republican governors association will name chris christie to be the new policy vice chairman, giving it a popular media friendly spokesman to lead opposition to the obama administration and promote conservative governance of the states. if he starts to have more of a national identity, possibly running for president, was a mistake he was not at cpac over the weekend? guest: if you want to be a presidential contender, you should be there. developing a national profile and doing great things for the movement nationally does not entail running for president.

just as it governor chris christie will do contributions in the area of pension reform and budget improvements. we need leaders to emerge nationally. there is a lot to talk about. educating our kids in a way that we can continue to be competitive -- all of these things require a national spokespeople. as they rise to positions of national responsibility, it does not entail running for president to make an incredible contribution. caller: good morning. i hope you all have a good day here today. one of the politicians talk about reductions in pay -- when the politicians talk about reductions in pay, why don't they look at the big picture of the federal budget for what they pay for the politicians and all

of the down ladders steps of it and do a pay reduction as small businesses have done? guest: i do not have much of an argument there. throwing in in the overhead that we have and running the executive branch and congress are certainly things we ought to do. there should be no sacred cows in this process. >> we are talking with a new chairman of the american conservative union, al cardenas. let's go to texas. our republican line. caller: i have three things i would like to bring up.

that would be cutting some of those czars that the president has created since he has been in office. no. 2, put the money back in and take the i.o.u. notes out of the social security. i hope it will be solvent again. 3, be sure to take the checks from all of the prisoners who are incarcerated that their government gives them. host: should social security reform be off the table? guest: we tried it before. no one has been able to do it. and my sense is it will take two years worth of town hall meetings around the country to get people to buy into reform because it is too easy to get burned politically.

i do not think it will get done this cycle despite the efforts from some of our leaders. entitlement reform needs to take place. if you are going to deal with deficit spending, you have to deal with that because our country needs it. i am for doing it by partisan town hall meetings, listening to the people, coming up and that things solutions. that is the only way it is going to get done. host: bobbitt is on our independent line. caller: all of these politicians keep talking about cutting entitlements but you do not hear them talking about all of the money that illegal aliens is costing this country. but why isn't anyone talking about that? why are you talking about a town hall meetings?

guest: i do not think -- i do not think these things are mutually exclusive. immigration reform is about 10 years late. we need to deal with it because of national security and law and order issues. we need to revamp our programs so businesses have the workers they need and we move forward on something that makes sense for everybody. the system right now is broken. we cannot have people being a part of the system. that needs to be reformed. it should've been done a long time ago. that is another item on the list. host: the front page of the washington post this morning has a piece about former speaker of the house and newt gingrich and how much money he has been able to raise the headline is --

with the group has raised more than $50 million -- the group has raised more than $50 million. is the former speaker is serious candidate for president? guest: he sure is. he will be at the front of the pack without a doubt. there will be candidates that will come from tears and raise the money to get the support they need. host: is someone's past fair game when it comes to personal issues like a divorce fort newt gingrich? is that fair game for conservatives to think about and vote against him for that reason if he were to run?

guest: the reality is everybody is going to have to deal with their personal and political issues. i hope they do it in and indians of civility. civility is one of the things in politics that we should all strive to adhere to. issues of your life or your believes is always going to be fair game in a presidential race. host: go ahead, caller. caller: good morning. i was just listening this morning -- i happen to hear about what you guys were talking about, spending, cutting, the whole bit. i feel like i have been giving or dishing out a lot of money to the government or to the

judicial system simply because what has been going on. since i am a disabled american, it is really hard because i need to save that money for getting a new car or let's say paying for rent or getting food for the table or toiletries or getting clothes or whatever. it is a bear because why do i need to be paying for something that obviously i do not even have? i have been trying to fight the legal system and the judges and the attorneys who are saying what you going to do -- host: what your thoughts? guest: the reason why there is a tea party movement in america is because the cost of living increases, government taxes, and

people do not see the light of day. that is why we are in the mess we are in. that is why this activism has started the way it has and has gained force. the medicine is going to be hard to swallow because it has been a gradual progression of irresponsible taxes it taken at the public and private sector and the need to stop. host: this is an e-mail coming in -- why? guest: we give everybody -- there is a registration packet. we encourage them at various times during the conference to engage and vote. we cannot force people to vote just like we cannot force voters to vote.

they will participate. if they spent money coming to washington to participate -- that was encouraging. people do not vote because sometimes they are not ready. the the people who did not vote are primarily people who did not make up their mind. that is i think the reason why. host: from my website, -- what do you think about her prospects for running? guest: if she decides to run, she will be a top tier candidate. it would be a lot of fun if she decides to run. if she does not, she is a part of another group that reached national status and can contribute to the national debate without running for president. i do not think she herself has made up her mind.

host: you were quoted in saying over the weekend that she was not at the cpac and thus not serious about running. guest: we have some potential candidates that -- it could mean that at some point in time they could change their minds. for now, they are clearly undecided on their future. host: a republican is on the air. caller: i do not think any of this is about republicans or conservatives. we all live here and have to get along. we need to cut this deficit and we need to think of ideas. they need to get the people involved in coming up with some ideas to cut the deficit. one of the ideas -- prisoners. it instead of paying people from out of the country, make them use the prisoners. take that money and give it

towards the deficit. there are all kinds of things. wouldn't do not need to take away from the police department -- we do not need to take away from the police department or nasa. the people that need help, give it to them but not the people who are sitting around and not working at all. host: your thoughts on that? guest: i am all for putting prisoners to work. they may not meet the courtesy standards that americans expect. her concept which is let people in prison be active and productive it is a good one. it has been undertaken in some places. a lot of states say putting prisoners to work because of the supervision in vault -- it is not an easy issue.

americans are sick and tired of having to spend so much money housing so many people that break a lot. we are asking for answers. we ought to get people and working at it. host: we are talking about the future of conservatism with a new chairman of the american conservative union, al cardenas. chris christie is in washington today. we will be covering that here on c-span. mitt romney is in utah meeting with donors and supporters. tim pawlenty is in tallahassee speaking to lawmakers. rudy guiliani is speaking at a business seminar in california. our independent line, good morning. caller: if the president and the congress want to cut the

deficits, why doesn't he just thought the war? why don't they just stop giving foreign aid to the middle east? why not bring the troops home and guard our borders? why not eliminate the income tax and half 10% across-the- board? host: should defense spending be on the table? guest: everything should be on the table. we are not living in peaceful times. we are threatened domestically and internationally. we need to address that whether we like it or not. the safety of our citizens is the no. 1 role of government. the secretary offered some reductions. republicans need to look at it as well. there should be nothing off of the table as long as there is enough there to keep us safe.

host: raymond is on our line for a democrat. caller: i have a couple of things. number one, i want to talk about the budget and reducing the deficit. what a thing what we need to do is take a percentage from each area of the government across the board where we need to cut and save. if we could do that -- the other thing, the military doing this work. i do not think so. host: a republican from albany, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. the guest was thinking -- was speaking about the common denominator of the fiscal conservative movement. i was just wondering if he could address why it always seems to

me that the emphasis is being put on the physical aspect of it. we have millions of babies lives being lost in their mother's womb when they are supposed to be safe. we talk about safety being the number one issue. i would just like for him to tell me when we are going to start addressing the issue of life which should come before monday and anything else. life should come first. guest: if you were at cpac, you would've seen it was at the centerpiece of the conference. we had many pro-life organizations at the conference. they expressed their points of view. the pro-life movement is a life living well within cpac. i encourage you to participate

with us. host: an independent caller from baltimore, maryland. caller: can you hear me? i does want to get straight to the point. i want to thank c-span and the guest. i wanted to know why, if the republicans and bush and the rest of the republicans and everybody voted for john mccain, if all these republicans voted for these people, why are the republicans not paying back? they should be paying everything back. everything was the republicans' fault. point two, the tea party started off with john mccain possess of a crowd. i wanted to read a couple -- host: we are running out of time. guest: no one escapes blame here

but you have to put it in proper perspective. deficit spending grew by eight percentage -- by eight percentage. president obama has taken it to a new level. that is why that the party started. -- that is why it t party started. caller: here is what i want to say. when reagan came to office, the budget was not even $1 trillion. it was $90 billion. the only person who has increased the budget [unintelligible]

the only people that ran the budget up was the republicans. when reagan came in, it was less than a trillion. guest: at the national debt under the previous administration's had hovered near 15% of our gross domestic product. it is now getting above 30%. it is costing it a significant number of fissueres in our economy. your comments are not based on facts. we are in the crisis that we are in.

host: good morning. caller: good morning. i know i am singing to the choir because you are a conservative. i wanted to mention earlier in the morning c-span at the former speaker of the house on, stating that the proposed budget that republicans have would eliminate teachers, police officers, and a fireman. i just wanted to know that that is not a responsibility of the central government. under the 10th amendment, the people of the state's never surrender that power to the central government. while she is running around screaming, that is my responsibility and the state of maryland to provide those services, not the central government. guest: well said. host: an independent is on the

air. caller: i believe talking about the 2011 budget we should just take 15% across the board so everyone has to take deductions and say everyone has to tighten their belts and look at what we took in from last year. it is just like i want to go buy something new and i do not have the money. i have to wait and save up, and the government should do the same. guest: doing across the board cost cutting is a popular item and is being seriously discussed. there is one pet peeve that i do have. i do not think the government has any role in funding of elections. that is not something we should gradually cut. we should not be spending millions of dollars funding a presidential race be it for a

democrat or republican or anyone else. politics should be done through private institutions. host: this headlined -- you are hearing a lot of calls focused on the budget and the deficit issues. given that headline, what does that mean for you as the new chairman of the american conservative union and how you attract republicans to the party? guest: we have to tackle entitlements at the national level. at the local levels, we have to tackle pension reforms. we are doing the right things by talking about earmarks, but that is 1% of the federal budget. where we really have to deal with are these larger issues that are swallowing up our country's richest.

that is going to take a lot of cuts on besides because it is not popular to take away benefits but you either have to spend more money on the benefits or you have to reduce them. host: do you think the republican candidate who talks the way you are talking can win? guest: boy, that is a great question. i do not know the answer to that. i encourage our candidates to do that. i am not sure it is in our best political interest yet. i hope so. to a republican, terry is in baltimore. what is your question? caller: i have two views. the first one is we are trying to get our spending down. we get free cell phone to people who say they are being

used for job hunting. and they are drug dealers and drug addicts. we give free housing to people who want to sit around and do nothing. we have democrats and republicans who want to do nothing but spend money. vacations, golf outings, and so forth and so on. until we are not afraid to talk about it, nothing is going to happen. if you give a guy a free cell phone, in massachusetts, they are going to help people buy cars. i do not want to give my tax dollars to somebody to buy a car. we send people to office and they tell us they are going to do the right thing. guest: he brings up a lot of good points.

should we subsidize electra cars and energy? why should i pay for you getting a card different than mine? i agree with that gentleman on many of the things he said. caller: good morning. the businessing channel the other day and they were discussing the derivatives market. they were talking about the difficulty of setting up reforms in the derivatives market which they said $600 trillion a year was traded on the derivatives market. why not pay a 1% tax on this derivatives market which is just pure gambling? that would be $6 trillion a year. how come i do not hear any discussion on that? postcode do you have any ideas on that?

host: do you have any ideas on that? guest: it avoid loopholes. finding dedicated sources of funding like that sounds attractive but i am much for a simpler system that applies to everyone and avoid loopholes and puts out of work a lot of smart tax -- a lot of smart tax lawyers. host: if a compromise to tackle the deficit included tax increases that were targeted toward the deficit, is that something republicans should sign on to? guest: i do not think you need to increase taxes as much as you need to reduce spending. americans prefer to do that if they need to, but reducing in spending needs to come to a halt.

host: but you think americans are willing to have their taxes increases to address it? guest: i do not know the answer to that. if we come up with a reduction plan that people will have faith in, i do not think they will be for increase in taxes. caller: i want to know how conservatives work. my husband worked for a company for 36.5 years. in the 2003, they terminated him out of the blue. and i knew that he had cancer. many people are dying even now. what they do, every two years, they terminate these people. my husband filed a lawsuit because he did millions of dollars in contracts. the judge said to me that the

company had many cases in the courtroom and they had never lost. the jury ruled in my husband's favorite. that is why he had a jury. your point? is how does this have to deal with the future of conservatism? guest: the judge told me you cannot win a lawsuit against a corporation in san diego because they were so big. they did not even pay my husband's life insurance. the host: judicial conservatism, what do you think? guest: i think she was talking more about the temperament of the jury and the judges. the whole idea of the judicial system being judged by your peers -- i do not know if i want to tinker with our founding

fathers. host: we are going to be talking about the impact of judicial vacancies in the impact is having on civil and criminal cases during the last hour on the "washington journal." larry, you are our last caller. caller: some interesting calls today. i really appreciate you taking my call. this spread the wealth deal, which started when the president first came in -- for example, he is trying to moderate. the tax bill at end december [unintelligible] by and retired air force. and my taxes went up.

there was no law passed because they all agreed to leave the taxes alone. like i say, it all goes back to this spread of wealth. let's take the stock market for example. a snapshot of what is going to happen six months from now. they were doing good because they knew what was going to happen. host: that was larry, a republican from las vegas. guest: the whole big picture of the taxation system, on the one side, people are saying this administration is trying to redistribute wealth. on the other side, they are saying people who makes a lot of money do not pay their fair amount because there are loopholes. if you have a flatter system across the board, you are fair to most americans.

i think the answer to an amending this tension between did redistribution of wealth and folks who do not pay their fair share is to have a flatter tax system with no loopholes. the host: al cardenas is the new chairman of the american conservative union. up next, we are going to turn our attention to obama's budget proposal with gwen moore. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> the government releases the producer price index this morning. economists predict a significant increase. it measures price changes before they reach consumers. a rise in the january numbers would follow a jump of over 1% in december. borders group is filing for

chapter 11 bankruptcy today. the company plans to close about 200 of its stores over the next few weeks. more people are buying books online and in an electronic form or through discounters like walmart. arizona rep get real difference continues to recover from a gunshot wound -- arizona are representative of gabrielle giffords continues to recover from a gunshot wound. a host committee includes all the members of the democratic leadership. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> it is a three-day presidential weekend on the c- span3. what is like to be related to an

american president. we hear candid conversations with descendants of four american presidents. we will visit the smithsonian national portrait gallery to learn the art and politics of american art work. for the complete schedule, go to c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: gwen moore, democrat of wisconsin, is a member of the house budget committee and represents the fourth district. let's begin with what do you think? what was your reaction when you heard what was going to be cut? guest: obviously, there were some disappointing features of

his budget plan. i thought after seeing the proposed c.r. from the republicans for this fiscal year. it really considering what the president had to deal with, i can in the say he recognized that you cannot simply cut your way out of this deficit, " your way into prosperity. i think his budget was realistic. it looked at more than just cuts. if looked at revenue raisers. it looked at a little bit of reforming some of the entitlement and mandatory spending programs. it looked at investing in the future, particularly sustaining some of the education programming. host: what areas will you push back on with the president?

guest: i am from wisconsin. it literally gives me chills up my spine to think about $400 million in cuts in low-income heating and assistance programs. this was a really vital program for seniors, for low income people. it has never been adequately funded. now, there is a $400 million cut as an example. i do think that is worthy of some kind of pushed back. perhaps, there will be republicans who will see a need to push back on that as well. host: the president talked about that yesterday when he laid out the framework. i want to show our viewers. >> on the home heating

assistance program, we have doubled the home heating assistance program when i first came into office in part because there was a huge energy spike. so, if we had just kept it at the same level, folks would have been in real trouble. energy prices have non -- energy prices have now gone down. let's go back to and more sustainable level. if it turns out that you see a huge energy spike, we can revisit it. let's not assume because it is at a $5 billion level that each year we are going to sustain it at a $5 billion level regardless of what is happening on the energy front. host: why not cut if it was bumped up two years ago because of an energy crisis? guest: i was really happy to hear that the president said he

was going to revisit it. the program has never been funded at a level where it would be needed. we just saw one of the coldest winters on record in the northeast and in places that rarely see snow and cold. i questioned the currency of his statement about energy prices having gone down. the volume of energy and services that people will need come spring will be tremendous. i know this program has been criticized of being nothing more than a subsidy to the energy companies. the reality is, low income people find their services curtailed because they cannot

pay. i am glad he is willing to revisit it when we see it disconnections this summer. my hope is that it will be an opportunity to do that. host: 10 seniors from advanced placement government economic class's in texas will be joining us aboard our digital bus. the students will be joining us via skype. a high school is 20 miles north of downtown austin, texas. our first student up this morning is a senior. go ahead, kristin. guest: hi. under the plan for the budget is long term. what is the likelihood that the future presidents will continue to implement this plan? guest: well, that is really a

great question. what we have to see first if this budget is adopted. if we get the cooperation that we need from the majority party and the house, and the slim majority that the president enjoys in the senate. this plan will take some budgetary discipline. i do have some graphs and charts that i brought along with me, but i can tell you during the clinton era, democrats and republicans worked together and achieved a balanced budget. it was only when we had reckless spending and tax cuts that were not paid for during the bush era, at two wars that were not paid for, 500 million other entitlement programs, medicare

prescription drug programs that featured a real giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies, not paid for, it really took us from a $5.6 billion surplus to our now $8 billion deficit. that is a really good question because it really requires cooperation and discipline on the part of lawmakers. host: as a member of the budget committee, the president's proposal is the opening act. what happens next? guest: this is an opening act. what happens now is it goes to the budget committee. this year, it is a little bit different because the republicans give the chairman the authority to set the caps

on spending. i think that is the easiest way to put it. the committee determines in each of the 20 budget functions on education, foreign assistance, what is the maximum authorizingt the committees can spend on any given function. then the budget resolution is adopted. from that point on, each one of the authorizing committees determines what their priorities are for education, for transportation, and then it goes on to the appropriations committee with the appropriations committee actually associates an

appropriation of non to each one of the authorization committee'' programs. then it goes on to the house for a vote and then on to the senate where they work on it. this happen simultaneously in both houses. finally, the congress votes on this bill. it then goes to the president for his signature. caller: good morning. i do not participate -- i would like to thank him for bringing of the fact that it is taxation without representation. the only one that should be paying taxes are those representing in d.c.

please, stay away from the social issues. thank you, obama, for raising taxes on multinational corporations. host: let's talk about what is expected from the president's budget. guest: i do not know if i can show the graphics. when you look at the continuing resolution, for example, that the republicans are proposing now, they are taking all of their cuts out of this small 15% of this budget. when they start talking about non-defense discretionary spending, they are really talking about slivers of the budget. they will not touch defense spending, which is about 20% of the budget. they are not talking about

raising any revenue. we have huge giveaways. we are providing literally billions of dollars of subsidies for higher and become americans -- for higher income americans. this is the bush era for tax cuts. $1.30 trillion over 10 years. when you look at this chart, you will see that the amount that is provided for those who earn over $1 million is a lot more than any tax benefit for an ordinary american. if you take a family of four making $75,000 a year, there is barely any difference in the tax breaks they receive under the tax plans under clinton and what

they receive with these bush era tax cuts. we start talking about corporate taxation -- i have a couple of examples here. a member of the deficit reduction commission identified a couple of things that i think are very important to point out. we provide $77 billion of a tax policy that favors the debt as a financing source. this provide people with highly leveraged debt something that caused the great meltdown in our economy. wheat week provided a $77 billion subsidy to people -- we provide a $77 billion subsidy to people.

we provided $34 billion as a tax break to companies that keep their money is in foreign countries as opposed to paying taxes on profits. a multinational corporations that have profits overseas and avoid u.s. taxes. while we are cutting low income energy assistance for poor people, wiping out programs, literally and milk for babies, we are providing $34 million to corporations to avoid paying taxes. host: this was put together by the joint economic committee democratic staff based on tax policy center. let's go back to the seas and digital bus -- let's go back to

the c-span digital bus. go ahead. caller: i have a question regarding the president's budget. it seems that environmental and energy spending is taking a priority over low income and community programs. i am concerned with this issue because i come from a low income families. what can high school student to to relieve this problem? guest: i can tell you that i certainly share your view that i am very concerned about what happens with low income people. i think what the president has said it really deserves some attention. he has said he is trying to minimize the pain of people currently but he does not want to forget about the future.

he puts a lot of focus on the new a economy that is going to be energy efficient. he puts a lot those focus on educational opportunity for young people like you to make sure at low income students can have the full pell grants so they can go to college. as a nation, we cannot depend on those kinds of jobs that have traditionally been very low- paying. we have got to win the future and make the kinds of technological advances that require a higher level of education. we have to win the future by having our students trained in the new energy economy. i think he is trying to not

sacrifice the future for short- term caretaking. i am very concerned that there are some in balances. i do not think we have to choose between providing heat for seniors and looking at an energy economy. i think much more can be done with regard to having a more balanced revenue picture. i just mentioned in the previous sector that we need to look a lot more into making sure that corporations pay their fair share. i will give you an example. we often hear this wale about how we are hurting businesses by taxing people who make over $250,000 a year. small businesses -- a hedge fund

manager -- people who make millions and millions of dollars and as they are not really contributing to the economy by hiring numbers of people and providing jobs for them. this budget provides for those kinds of small businesses to make sure there are all kinds of tax incentives to continue to hire people and keep people on the payroll. we should make a clear distinction between a small business and some of the people who are lawyers, high paid lawyers, hedge fund managers, people in the service industry that do not really manufacture and produced things. host: lauren is a student at the

high school. what is your question? guest: president obama was planning on spending $53 billion on a new high-speed service for the u.s. i was wondering if that is smart because it is going to cost a lot of money for the service even after you build it. host: what do you think, laurin? guest: i think it might not be smart because it is going to cost a lot of money to obtain even more than the prices at the actual service will come in so it will cost a lot more than what people are going to be able to pay to bring back. i was wondering what you thought of that. guest: all over europe, they have high-speed trains and rail.

if it is a dumb idea, it is being done all over the world. moving people, goods and services across the country very quickly really does contribute to your a economy. businesses intend to locate in areas where there is access by rail, by train. i can tell you that building and these systems create a lot of job opportunities, not just for people who build the rails and operate the rails, but all kinds of small businesses. the gwen moore shope that may locate itself right near the rail. if you build it, they will come. i think it is a forward-thinking motion. it must -- it might cost money, but in the end, i think it

provides a lot of opportunities for people who build it, for people who supply equipment, people who demolish things around the property. so it creates a lot of economic activity in the short run. in the long run, it really creates an opportunity for businesses to move business services across the country and to export products internationally. host: lauren and the other nine seniors are a part of the advanced placement economic government class's but the high school in texas. we want to thank time warner cable for coordinating the visit. let's go to stephanie, a republican in atlanta. you are on the air.

caller: my thinking is with obama's tax cuts. what i am hearing is everything he is cutting is not going to create any kind of jobs. i am unemployed. i am about to lose my home. he said that all so that with the tax cuts, our paychecks would go up. my husband's paycheck did not go up. i mean, it did not go down. it went up. i mean, when he passed -- i did not receive 99 weeks. i feel like he needs to go back and review unemployment for the ones that did not get the 99 weeks.

and do something for not someone who has got the 99 weeks -- host: we will leave it there and get an answer. guest: thank you for calling, stephanie. i cannot agree with you more. i did not vote to extend the bush era tax cuts. obama temporarily renewed them for two years because he had to make a deal to get the unemployment compensation to people. but the bush era tax cuts added to our deficit $1.30 trillion. that could've been avoided. extending those tax cuts adds to our deficit in the long term. those bush era tax cuts, the tax

cuts that were ushered in in 2001 and in 2003 really did not help people making modest incomes, people making $50,000 a year, $75,000 a year, whereas even though tax cuts for the middle-class -- the wealthiest six times as much as they hoped for the ordinary working class people. that is why i think we need to just end the bush era tax cuts and revisit them. i think what you are talking about is making work pay tax ctuuts that obama provided in te stimulus bill. i think a lot of people complained they did not notice it. but you did get a few dollars

extra from those tax cuts. i think a lot of people did not notice it. a lot of people argued we would've been better off sending people 8 $250 check so they would have noticed it. it would cost more to do that but at least he would have noticed it. go back to the c-span -- host: let's go back to the c- span digital bus. guest: guest: at the postal service has its own source of income. a long story made short, the postal service actually owes a lot of money from the treasury.

to your point, the postal service is that last mile. even when used east -- even when you use private services, there are places these private services do not go. a private company will take it to the u.s. postal service to get it on top of that hill. so the postal service is still very widely used and one of the oldest public services in america. polling shows that it is one of the services that people still have a great deal of confidence in. host: let's go to dayton, ohio.

caller: mrs. moore, please do not take this personally, but the problem is you end 434 of your best friends -- and bush did this, clinton did that. at the end of the day, we are $14 trillion in debt. the deficit is over $1 trillion. the bottom-line is, 20% across the board. tell people this is what you have to deal with. now manage. guest: i want to show him this chart again. you know, the republicans are proposing cuts. the president has proposed three. if you look at this chart, if

you cut every single time of money in those categories, if you cut everything out of education, everything out of agriculture, if you just stick to the things that you like, just pick and choose every single thing that you see on that chart, we would still not reduce the deficit at all, ever. so, we really do have to be realistic about what this calls for it. i hear about how a lot of people talk about we have to deal with the entitlements. what are a part of those entitlements? part of those entitlements or will we give to wealthy farmers, not your ma and pop farms.

again, i am mentioning the medicare prescription drug program, which, you know, if we are going to reform entitlements, we have to start their. we have an entitlement program the republicans put in place and said you cannot negotiate lower prices with the pharmaceutical company. it cost $500 billion because we don't negotiate drug prices. you've got to look at that. we cannot just continue to give $35 billion to multinational corporations and tax breaks -- in tax breaks who are domiciled in the united states, make profits overseas, and don't want to pay u.s. taxes on that income. at the other 435 members of my family, my friends and colleagues in congress, have got to realize that we cannot cut

our way into prosperity. you cannot have a defense budget with the secretary of defense says that he can identify $100 billion worth of weaponry that is no longer relevant, but still have a majority party in the house that says, you know, this a holy cow. you cannot cut anything out of defense. we have got to have revenue on the table. we have got to reform our entitlements, and i'm not talking about major, dramatic changes, stuff like social security, but medicare. not only do we have to reform medicare, but we have got to make sure that we don't have the private health care system in our country run amok and grow

at 20% every year, which is why i was so proud to vote for our health care bill to start bending the cost curve down so we can afford these entitlement programs. so you make an excellent point that we need to cut, but we have to cut expenditures and at the same time we have got to raise more revenue. our revenue as a percentage of our economy is lower now than it was under harry truman. i will be 60 years old this year. our revenues have never been of the were in my entire lifetime -- never been lower in my entire lifetime than it is now. you will not be able to deny the treasury revenues it deserves because you want to give tax breaks to millionaires and the

folks carrying money overseas and just cut your way out of the whole we are in. host: gus barrera is our next student. >> with a cut in the budget affecting grants available to students -- what the cuts in the budget affecting grants available to students? guest: president obama in this budget says he is adamant about maintaining the maximum pell grant. the president made this a mandatory program so that people who qualify can get it. now, what he did do is to cut out all grants -- pell grants for summer school students and require graduate students to start paying interest on their loans right away.

there have been some changes to that program, but i think he has really demonstrated a commitment to education and the financial aid in this budget. host: ryan garcia, also a student at stony point high school, go ahead. >> my question was, with the economy just coming back and recovering, with the extensive budget cuts and tax increases, which is send us back into another recession? -- what it says that to another recession? guest: you know, that is an excellent question. economists have argued that we need to extend the bush-era tax cuts for 2011 but we did not face unemployment and a double- dip recession. timing is everything. in the long term, it is not sustainable to continue the

bush-era tax cuts, which contributed $1.30 trillion to our deficit over 10 years. we of got to scaled-back those tax cuts. the president's budget as proposed ending them for those over $250,000 after 2012. timing is everything. economists have said we are in a very fragile situation. our unemployment numbers -- you know, unemployment is still a lagging indicator of the health of our economy, and we need to do this carefully. now, the president's budget cut $1.10 trillion over 10 years, but we see the republicans with their continuing resolution cutting at a much more aggressive the scale.

it is very dangerous, the level at which they want to cut. host: let's go to maine. william, a republican. good morning. caller: i want you to know right off the bat that i don't even have running water or a flasush toilet, so i am poor. but i know better than you. you say we of got to tax the rich. they pay a higher percentage than we do think of how they get the money in the first place. now we say that we of got the service but i want my money back. let's take this point that date paid the highest taxes. guest: and they get the highest benefit as well. to whom much is -- from whom much is given, much as expected. they sold securities -- there

was no integrity at the bottom of it. they made billions and billions of dollars literally selling as smoke and mirrors. they sold these derivatives that at no underlying value -- had no underlying value. they package mortgages that they knew were bad. people with no jobs, no income -- they appraised shacks. you said you have no running water. some swindler out there might have, and tried to sell your house for $500,000, with no running water in it. they sold things of no value. a lot of people have gotten rich, and they have offered nothing in return. you now, you take people -- you know, you take people -- there

are very wealthy people in this country who did a lot back, and they know that this country has provided them tremendous opportunities to be great. we have a tax code that says for your first $10 million you get, you pay a lower tax rate. we do a lot to try to help businesses grow and generate. only in america could you come -- could you become a wealthy. we have a lot of incentives in a tax codes to help people. but we say that when you get there, throw the rug dow -- throw the rope down and pull some other people up. as a percentage of their income, rich people do not pay as much. i disagree with that. if you look at the chart i provided, the bush-era tax cuts, the tax code is kind of like a staircase, not an

escalator. when you say you give a tax break to people at the lowest end of the tax code, say a 10% tax cut of the first, you know, $40,000 or $50,000 of their income, rich people get that benefit, too. it is not like we are taxing them 38% on the first portion of their income. they get the benefit of the lower tax cuts all the way up to scale. host: c-span's digital bus is visiting stony point high school in texas. we have a handful of the seniors who participated in an advanced placement government and economics class. they are joining us to ask the congresswoman questions. our next guest is -- our next step and is m -- student is megan mcgill. >> the budget calls to reduce the deficit by $1.10 trillion

over the next decade. i know people who think this is not a drastic enough cut. i just want to know your feelings on the issue. guest: well, people say they want to have a balanced budget. what the $1.10 trillion in cuts does over the next five years is make our deficit 3% of our economy, which many economists, most economists, think is being healthy. now, it is not a zero deficit position, but it is lowering our deficit in half to give our creditors' confidence that we have a healthy economy. and there are people, quite frankly, who had a philosophy that we should and provide -- shouldn't provide money for anything. they don't want you to have a telegram, they think your parents should not put -- they don't want you to have a pell

grant, they think her parents should have put money aside. host: i want to ask megan something. do your parents talk about debt and deficit at the dinner table? >> they don't talk about it a whole lot. i know a lot of friends whose parents are a lot bigger on the issue and i just heard a lot about how they are very concerned about the deficit. host: ok. guest: well, it is very fair to be concerned about the deficit. when you are in debt, you have to pay higher interest on a borrowing. it is important for us to reduce our deficit. but you cannot simply reduce the deficit and not have money to make investments. megan, we think that you are worth it, and at the same time reducing the deficit, we need to make sure you have a financial aid.

here is the question of who we are as americans. the budget is not just numbers and deficits and surpluses. it is about our values. what do we value? after fdr, america said we are not going to see elderly people be poor anymore. we had a 35% of our elders poor before we passed social security. and now poverty among seniors is in the single digits. that is what it is about. they are not just about deficits and debt. host: cheryl bell, also a senior in stony point high school. when you in the ap class, the economic class, or both? >> i am in the ap class. i understand that president obama wants to invest more in science and technology and

engineering and math. but as a feature liberal arts major, i am wondering how that new investment is going to affect those who share that same interest. guest: well, i can tell you that there is nothing wrong with being a liberal arts major, because i still think the people still need to be able to buy and read -- to write and read and think and make decisions. our computers are not the point that they can make a critical kinds of decisions that we still make. today, the president's brand new press secretary is going to be beginning his career. we need people who can do that as well. there will be a future for people who are not in -- because even if someone makes the new machine, there have got to be people who are going to market it to other places in the world, there are going to be people to teach our younger kids, because

everybody who can put together a computer cannot necessarily teach our young people. we have an economy that needs to be endeavour -- to be diverse. it doesn't need to just focus on science. it has to be able to market and sell it to the rest of the world. we will be looking out for you as well. host: omb director jack lew before the house committee yesterday. what did you hear from him? guest: he acknowledged that this was an austere budget, that there were painful choices, that the president had a personal affinity for community services, block grant funding that he had to cut in half, and that was very hard for him to do. but the president wanted to be taken seriously about trying to get the deficit under control while really trying to make sure that he focused on innovation, education, winning in the

future -- winning the future, and not harming -- and touching, basically, social security and health care. host: one last question, cameron hooper. >> the president's budget does not appear to address the projected medicaid, medicare, or social security overlap. do you have any idea what the funding for these programs will be resolved? guest: thank you for asking that question, cameron. first, i want to tell you that the social security trust fund is not what is driving our deficit. the social security trust fund is solvent, perfect until 2037, and because of people like me, a baby boomer, the socials ago to trust fund needs to be tweaked

-- social security trust fund is to be tweaked to some extent so that they can make full payments and not just 75% of its payments after 2037. it now, the medicare and medicaid trust fund are things that need to be changed, and that is the reason that the president is so adamant about maintaining the health care reform act that we provided. that bill -- not this budget, but that bill provides, over the course of the next decade, $1 trillion in savings. the first decade, $200 billion in savings for medicare. i mentioned earlier, cameron, that we do need to fix it this medicare prescription drug program that the republicans put in place. it is a giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies. we need to make sure that

pharmaceutical companies -- that the prices are negotiated brought what the president did in this budget is he reduced the amount of time that companies could not but generic drugs in the formulary. there were about $62 billion in savings that the president put in place with -- and it's a long story, a doc fix and so forth. he did it to a little bit with medicare and medicaid. yes, health care is one of the things that needs to be fixed, and the president has said he's willing to sit down on a bipartisan basis and look at how to do that. social security is not driving the deficit. i want to read you a quotation

from fdr, when he put the medicare program in place. he said -- this was his message to congress in 1934 -- "i am looking for a sound means by which i can recommend to provide security against several of the great factors in life, especially those which relate to unemployment in old age. i believe the funds necessary to provide this insurance should be raised by contribution rather than by an increase in general taxation. we put those payroll contributions to their -- there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions ." this is as quoted by arthur/ schlesinger, jr. many people who demagogue "we

have got to fix social is a dirty" don't want to raise the revenue to pay the piper -- "we have got to fix social secure" don't want to raise the revenue to pay the people who have built those houses and pay for those roads. it is fully solvent. the cast has been used for tax cuts and over things. they are demagoguing because they want to renege on the legal, moral, political right people have to social security. host: congresswoman, we are out of time. guest: oh, so soon! host: thank you for talking to our students. guest: thank you. you guys were great, yes great questions, and i hope to meet you some time. host: we want to get time warner cable and academy coordinator rachel sotelo for preparing the

students. we will talk about judicial vacancies. but first, a news update from c- span radio. >> wholesale prices rising at the fastest pace in over two years due to higher costs for gasoline, pharmaceuticals, and other goods. excluding food and energy, the prices rose since the -- the most since october 2008. builders broke ground on a new homes and a departments at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of just over half a million units, a 14% jump since december. two were shot by unknown gunmen in central mexico yesterday. the wounded agent is in stable condition, according to homeland security secretary janet napolitano. drug-related violence in mexico has claimed at least 34,000 lives in the past four years.

recently released documents show that secure communities, a voluntary program that runs all criminal suspects' fingerprints through a database, was not optional as originally thought, after some cities reduced to participate, the obama administration researched case law making the program mandatory. the documents were made public by the department of all men security. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is washington journal, our live at call-in program about the news of the day, collecting you with elected officials and policy makers and a journalist. weeknights, a congressional hearings and policy forms, and supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs --

"the communicate is," "2 in," and "prime minister's questions" from the house of commons. c-span, washington your way. it public service created by america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: russell wheeler is a visiting fellow at the brookings institution's governance studies program and is that a small think tank with an interest in it-french relations. he has been studying this issue a federal -- interest in inter- brach relations. he has been studying the issue of federal judicial vacancies. "the washington post" reported that there are more than 100,

and 46 of those are classified as judicial emergencies. at least 15 more vacancies are expected this year 16 nominees confirmed during president obama's first to tie -- and stop -- 60 nominees confirmed during the obama administration's first two years is the lowest number in 35 years. what is the issue here, and what impact is that having on court cases? guest: well, two questions. what the issue is -- fewer nominations from the white house and past administrations, and about the same percent of confirmations of court of appeals judges. but district court judges explain more than anything else the issue of the vacancies. usually, when presidents come into office, there is a high number of vacancies and it is decreased over the next two years in obama's case, the vacancies are about where they were when he came to office, but

district of vacancies have gone up. the attack is having a very across the country, obviously -- the impact it is having a very across the country, obviously. many more border patrol agents are making arrests, and fewer judges are able to process them. one thing it means in cases like that is that the civil case load gets pushed way to that because congress has set a statute that criminal cases get priority. host: we see in some cases, according to "the washington post," three-year delays in some cases. when classified as a judicial emergency? -- what classifies as a judicial emergency? guest: judges can declare a an emergency for the whole district. judge roll was in the process of doing that in arizona when he

was murdered. usually we see that judicial emergencies are only refer to -- this get technical, but it is categorization that the judicial conference has treated, any vacancy in the district court' whose weighted filings exceed 600. los angeles has about 600 t2 weighted filings per judge. that is a fairly high bar. there also judicial emergencies in accord with more than one judgeship if there is an act of a judge. in springfield, illinois, four judgeships, but only one of them is still pre -- but only one of them is still the. ho -- is filled. host: describe the extent of the

backlog. guest: criminal cases -- they could be taking up to three years, but you can find a great deal of variation district to district to district of what you call the backlog numbers. host: is there pressure on defendants and prosecutors and judges to move the third criminal cases quickly, and if so, what impact is that having on whether or not somebody pleads guilty? iest: no, i don't think -- don't really know the answer to that question, but i don't tend to doubt that higher caseloads will induce a guilty pleas that it would not otherwise. very few go to the trial right in the -- very few go to trial. the trial rate is around 1-2%. host: how is the judiciary

responding? guest: to take a position that it is not our job to fill judicial emergencies. chief justice roberts said in his year-end estimate, although he urged congress and the president to find a solution, that that is not our issue to get into. members of congress and senators are saying we really need help here, and there is evidence of that, and across the country, a lot of editorials, papers across the country are beginning to talk about this much more than they used to be, and that could be the result in part of federal judges talking to newspapers and saying, "give us some help here." host: you were quoted in a thatt piefece on slate the parlor game has spread like a virus to district courts. there is a political component of this.

what impact is that having? guest: the confirmation rate for court of appeals judges has been steadily going down. 50, 60% range. generally, the confirmation range for district judges is 80%, 90%. district judges are being confirmed. obama's first two years, taking out the ones he nominated late, was about 67%. that may pick up. there is talk that republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee are committed to moving more nominations, so that may pick up but what we have come to accept is contentious battles over court of appeals nominations, at least in the last congress, as spread out to the district courts brought -- has spread out to the district court's. host: how many cases are brought at each level? guest: the district courts, about 670 judgeships, 94

districts across the country. you see around 350,000 cases, most of them civil cases. maybe 70,000 criminal cases i don't have the numbers exactly right, but close to that. court of appeals -- 12 regional in one subject matter circuit, 1079 judgeship -- 179 judgeships. host: we are talking a wide judicial vacancies and the impact it is having on his civil and criminal cases. if you've had experience with this, we would love to hear your story as well. russell wheeler is our guest, a visiting fellow at the brookings institution. let's go to lisa, a democrat in new york.

you with us? pope, it would help -- oh, it would help if i push a button. go ahead. caller: think the government has to protect all american citizens, independence, and civil rights a lot better than they have. host: what are you referring to? caller: the law is not set up to protect people's rights the way that they need to be. host: do you have a specific example? caller: yeah, the government is in my head with a machine. host: ok, we will leave it there. tell us about how the nomin ating process works. guest: i like, the members of the president's -- technically,

the members of the president's party said suggestions to the white house, the white house takes it under investigation. the nomination is submitted to the judiciary committee, which undertakes its on examination. the judiciary committee may or may not hold hearings. if it holds hearings, it may or may not report the nominee out to the full senate. the senate may or may not vote. what has been happening recently is that senators are using their authority to put anonymous holds on nominees, have basically put the majority leader to this test. do you want to spend 30 hours debating a district court nominee, or do you want to get on to the business -- other business? that has created the stall more than anything else. court of appeals to be a little less -- the court of appeals are

considered more policy-making, rely more on the white house posture assessment -- the white house's assessment of the judicial philosophy. host: bobby, are on the air. caller: i have a question for the man right there. i am a retired veteran. i was over in desert storm. ptsd since i got back from desert storm. i kept getting tonight, all my claims, because my ptsd -- i kept getting denied,, claims, because my ptsd. i did paying for this for years, ever since i got back from desert storm. host: all right, russell wheeler

is a visiting fellow from brookings. the topic today is a judicial vacancies and in fact it is having on criminal case -- and the impact it is having a criminal cases. how long would it take to get 48 through? guest: most of that 48 or nominees -- people nominated in the last congress and renominated en masse. obama renominated every one of his nominees except one. the court of appeals said he lost his sponsor. typically takes about six months or so to get through the process, maybe longer for court of appeals judges. it has been takin eightg -- taking much longer, though. host: david, a republican in michigan, while you look for those numbers.

caller: what is the impact of the nomination of these radical left-wing activist judges and holding up the filling of the judgeships? guest: i don't think i would accept your premise that obama has nominated a lot of radical left wing and judges. in fact, the democratic base has been rather dissoluti -- disillusioned with the president because it is fairly centrist nominees -- because of his fairly centrist nominees. a berkeley law professor wrote a lot of fire -- provoked a lot of ire. but almost all the nominees obama submitted went through on voice votes. a very few of them had the votes taken, and all of them went through. far left nominees i don't think is the problem here. host: kevin, battle creek,

michigan. caller: thank you for taking my call it a f -- that you for taking my call. if you quick points, if i can. if i could run them off road? -- if i could run them off real quick -- the present rate every year, corruption in the judicial system -- it is like a counterproductive or for someone to be in business or profiting from incarcerating people. i am not talking about the violent people, rapists or what have you. i am talking about non-violent folks, people whose crime does not have any victims -- like someone who they stole from or hurt or assaulted or anything. there were pulled over and caught with marijuana -- host: yeah, we got your

point. guest: most of those a rise in state court. that does not take away from your point that it is not desirable to prosecute crimes that don't have the victims. that is not the judge's responsibility. they take the case that the prosecutors and civil litigants and file, and they impose the punishment the law requires. it is not the responsibility, principally, of the judicial branch of the federal and state governments. host: brian, go ahead. caller: you are talking about vacancies of judges. it is not really seem like it is slowing down the laws that are made to restrict the american people. senate bill s.5.10 pretty much says it is illegal for people to grow their own food.

can you respond? guest: i am not sure of the question, but if you are saying that congress continues to enact statutes even though there are vacancies on the bench, that is correct. the bill you are referring to, i am not familiar with. host: what you make of that contributes to the backlog? guest: the more statutes, the more cases that will be filed, and the more cases that are filed, without judges there, that will create delays in disposing the inquiries. host: you are on with the russell wheeler. caller: how does the federal appeals court determined cases with regard to the importance of each case? although there is a significant backlog with which your friends, who makes that decision? -- there is a significant

backlog which you referenced, who makes that decision? guest: our view of the court of appeals from the views ago is that the case is spelled and it goes before three judges for oral argument and the judges make a decision and one of them writes the opinion. that does not describe the court of appeals today, because they received a lot of cases that are, quite frankly, quite easy to dispose of. most of them are on what they call tracks, where senior staff attorneys apply criteria that judges have created to route cases to and either an argument track on non-argument track, and the judges themselves decide what gets a full blown written opinion or something must let -- or something less than that. those decisions are made by courts under criteria at the judge's established -- judges establish. host: judy, independent caller .

caller: what i would like to address is the credibility that some of the judges have. there is a prosecutor, a public defender, whatever, or a lawyer. does the judge have any real power today in the public court system? i am just curious as to some of the legal briefs, because i have been in separate court systems, even in federal court, i don't think sometimes that they really are price of the situations that are really going on. host: why were you in federal court? did you have a job that involved that? caller: civil court? host: yes, you said you have .een at a lot of itcourts caller: well, i used to be assistant district attorney but i saw a judge at at that time

and a lot of times the judge, i thought it would be apprised of what was going on in the brief. my son went three times but the third time i went with him to tell the judge that you need to pay attention to me first, and finally, they went over the paperwork, the whole time they had been calling him to court, they at papers in brief -- papers and briefs and they were going to put him in jail for six months -- guest: keep in mind that there are about 30,000 state judges, and you'll get a variation wherever you look. you may be talking about what some people think is the strong control prosecutors maintain over the processing of cases by deciding what charges to file. that is largely out of the hands of the judge. i am sure there are instances

where judges are not up on the proceedings before the madrid my experience is primarily in federal court, -- the proceedings before them. it might experience is primarily in federal court, and my experience is that they are pretty on the case. host: democratic line. caller: i have two statements here. one is to the right wing person who called about the liberal whats -- hasn't a clue goes on a. when they nominate a judge, they have to go through the house or senate. i watched c-span quite often. when they bring up nominations, all the one republican had to sit down there and say -- only one republican had to sit down there and say, "i deny." the reason for the wages and

everything going down and the right to organize is because of right-wing judges. they don't even hear the problem, they just know they are right wing and they are against organization and that is what is happening to the world. host: bill is a democrat. guest: well, one way to look at this is to ask this question -- how different are the voting records of the judges appointed by republican presidents and democratic presidents? we have some evidence about that. you might think, listening to some people, that the differences are great. they are really not. criminal cases, no way to predict how the case is going to be decided or the motion ruled on by the party of the opening president, my surrogate for what you referred to as a right-wing or left-wing judges. in other ways, the environment, civil-rights cases, there may be greater gaps, but they are relatively small.

if you want to characterize these decisions as liberal or conservative, which is a bit of an oversimplification, the gap between a liberal and conservative judges is in the 10% range. while the tories cases get a lot of attention, by and large, -- while the notorious cases that a lot of attention, by and large, the difference is really rather small. host: next call. caller: we are referring to 650 appointments are open yet. my question is, i am under the impression that guidelines in federal cases in reference to sentencing, they have to run the whole guideline. the town receives three years, five years, 10 years -- the gentleman receives three years,

five years, 10 years. i am going to have to do jury duty next month. it is like we are incarcerating people and there is no real politician -- no rehabilitation, and walked out the gate with a few dollars in their pocket. guest: you are at talking about the guidelines that congress mandated in the 1980's, and the guidelines, which lay out rather strictly the sentence the defendant will get based on their offense a criminal history. those are advisory guidelines now. judges can use their discretion to go outside the guidelines. there are guidelines schemes in the states as well. different states have different levels of mandatory guidelines imposed on judges for imposing criminal sentences. there is in the state courts, for example, and some of the federal courts as well, an effort to deal with part of the

problem you were talking about, so-called drug courts and their records. the goal is not simply to -- so- called drug courts and at therapeutic courts. the goal is not simply to punish the offender but to get to the word of the problem. -- root of the problem. host: here is a tweet. fort lauderdale, florida. mark, independent caller, you are next. caller: great subjects. that blow you just read kind of lead into -- blurb you just read kind of leads into what i wanted to go into. he led an earlier caller -- you had an earlier caller ranting and raving about all tri-liberal judicial activists -- ultra- liberal judicial activists going on.

the fact of the matter is an activist judge is one who rules against you. to the point that date will against your political point of view, they become eight judicial -- become a judicial activist. going back many years, a judicial nominations walked through very easily with not a lot of fighting over it. in recent years, it has become almost impossible for any of these nominees to get there as long as there is a way to hold up by a hold. host: we will leave it there. at russell wheeler. activist judges, legislating from the bench -- i don't know what those terms mean. they are used by both sides of the political spectrum to criticize judges whose opinions

they don't like. i would caution against the view that no nominees are getting through. keep in mind, until the obama administration, district ambnominees were getting approved by and large about 90% of those submitted. it is not as of nominations are not getting confirmed. it is just that we had in the core rate of confirmation, especially at the district level, -- have a lower rate of confirmation, especially at the district level, and we have seen historically. host: you found the opposite in your research, is that correct? "evidence shows that a nominee's political views are accurate in predicting future rulings"? guest: i don't know what that evidence is. one prediction might be the party of the appointing president, whether it is a republican or democratic

president. what i said is that there is not a lot of strong evidence that there are wide gaps in decisions judges based on the party of the appointing a president. cases in federal and state court generally don't have an ideological dimension. most of them are relatively easily disposed of. the court of appeals and dispenses hearings without opinions because they don't merit it. most of them i just -- are just from people who cannot get things resolved on their own or criminal matters that have to be prosecuted. host: alan on the republican line, st. louis, missouri. caller: i think a guess, maybe intentionally or unintentionally, is treating -- creating a misapprehension among viewers that the courts are

overworked and they are in trial all the time trying to dispose of these civil cases, when the truth is, when you look at these statistics, the last time i looked at them, the level of actual trials is actually declining. cases are filed and they are often like 90% on the civil side settled. in fact, i would ask the guest, the last time you walked through a district court house, and let's say the district court was four or five district judges and three or four magistrates, how many trials did you see going on at 1:00 in the afternoon? in the morning, there are matters of ". but you will be lucky to see one file in several court rooms. guest: that is what i said earlier, that the rate has gone down. it has gone down in federal courts to around 2% or 3%. it varies from time to time, year to year. don't get the impression, don't get the idea that the only thing

judges to is preside over a child's. most cases to settle, but there is -- is preside over trials. most cases to settle, but it is not as if judges preside over a trial or play golf. there is an awful lot of work at the courts, federal and state, that goes without trials. trials in some people's mind is a failure of the system to get things resolved through means other than trials. host: democrat in new jersey. good morning. caller: i watch the court's pretty carefully, and even though mr. wheeler says that the judge's -- it seems to me that that was the point -- i read

that obama has put in a large amount of both women and minorities. that is the first point. the district courts an appeal courts are not tell us that much. but you do see the supreme court cases -- i kind of disagree with mr. wheeler is saying that political ideology does not come through in these cases. host: what do you mean? what you see in the supreme court cases? caller: i watched them on c-span -- host: cameras are not allowed -- caller: i watch them, i hear oral arguments. -- i don't watch them, i hear the oral arguments. guest: in cases, copyright poughkeepsie case -- bankruptcy cases -- you see in

the supreme court, not so much alignment but encouragement, judges that are more conservative and in churches that are more liberal. -- judges that are more liberal. the role of ideology in differentiating decisions judges make as much more modest. that is the only point i'm making. host: 10 this city. -- kansas city. ann, independent line. caller: i was a civil rights litigant, and there was about five to seven methamphetamine and drug cases, an immigration case, and my case, the civil rights case. i think the judges are having a tough time because of the drug problem, i think the solution is to quit allowing the system to grigri generating profits.

some drugs need to be let -- to keep regenerating profits. some drugs need to be illegal, but some don't. it is the system to keep the judges and lawyers and please keep demanding money -- police all demanding money. the town i used to live in builds this fancy new police department, a town i happened to sue for misconduct, and they have a police department that looks like a college. i think we ought to be able to see who is contributing to the judges, federal, state, and local, and also, we simply need to protect our civil rights. the only way we can is to get more judges of their -- more judges up there, judges that are independent and don't have ties to politicians.

perhaps a security force for judges that is independent and not tied to state and local law enforcement. guest: no doubt, state judges who are elected, especially for short terms, it may well be very close to the aspects of the government you describe it. i am reluctant to make generalizations on that score. you made a reference to contributions. federal judges don't run for office and don't receive campaign contributions. state judges, a state judicial elections, it is, in the minds of many people, a big problem. new york recently announced henceforth that judges could not hear any case in which one of the parties and contributed more than 25 $1, an awful lo -- more than $2,500, which is an awful lot, to the election campaign.

host: roger, you are on the air. caller: this is for russell wheeler. i think that perhaps there should be junger judges on the bench -- younger judges on the bench. despite the would be able to emphasize -- this way they would be able to empathize with the young people on the drug cases involve britt is a lot of the judges -- involved. in a lot of the judges think that marijuana is a seriously punishable crime. guest: those sentences are dictated by the state legislature, not the judges. i think state judges to tend to be a little jungeyounger. whether that makes them about lies more with the defendants in front of them is a whole

other question -- whether that makes them empathize more with the defendants in of them is a whole other question. since george washington, 90% the president's appointees have been a member of his political party, which shocks a lot of foreigners. it does not mean all of you might think it means. when i first started getting into this, the conventional wisdom was that you practice law for 20 or 30 years and then you got to be a federal judge. the fact of the matter is, in the clinton and bush and now obama administration's, no more than 30% of their appointees come from private practice of law. that is a fact that concerns some people, and other people think it is a good thing. host: ohio. good morning.

caller: i would like to talk about republican and democrat parties. i thought the judges were supposed neutral -- or supposed to be neutral. two things i would like to bring up, one about the judicial one, with karl rove, when he was fired, and another one in the state of ohio, and gov. taft -- he was told that he only had four felony charges, and at two weeks later, he had 14, and he was exempt from going to prison -- host: we will leave it there and just take your point about neutral judges. guest: 11 judges appointed by a republican or -- a lot of judges appointed by a republican or democratic president -- that is just a way to assess behavior.

you are right, they're supposed to be neutral, in my experience, a fairly powerful ethic driving a judges is that they are indeed a neutral. there are some cases with the ares and the presicedents unclear and the judge will rely on other factors, but those cases are relatively rare. i'm very impressed, and i will just say, i am not doing this to ingratiate myself to judges, but be arole of a judge to neutral arbitrator is fairly strong. host: los angeles, your last. make it quick if you could. caller: how short on a week by judges for immigration -- are we on judges for immigration? what is the difference between a judge any court referee? guest: