♪ cuf host: congress returns to washington, two major items on the agenda. keeping the federal government running past friday. beginning to look at budget proposals for departments and agencies. c-span will have coverage of both of those items. welcome to "washington journal." today is monday, february 28, 2011. we want to begin with an item that is on the front page of "national journal." according to their 2010 vote ratings it shows that congress was more polarized last year

than any year since the rankings began. they want to talk about how the divide is shaping washington. that will be our debate for the first 45 minutes. what do you think of the polarization of congress and how things are being run on capitol hill? for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you have called us within the last 30 days, today would be your day to send us a message electronically. atu can send us an e-mail tha journal@c-span.org, or if you are on twittered you can follow was at that address, twitter.com/c-spanwj. more on the cover story, the title of the article is "pulling

apart."

host: for the first 45 minutes of the program, how does this political polarization affect congress? we will show you some of the numbers that go along with it. tom, kan., democratic line. good morning. caller: i think that the impact between democrats and republicans is a mess.

and they are not governing. they are putting on shows. the government is going down. the economy is going down. so, they need to be trying to deal with how they're going to get everything else together and get people to work. instead of worrying about what money not to spend. host: how does this political polarization that that congress? the next call comes from david in wyoming. caller: i am surprised that i got through. listen, i just wonder how much polarization there really is. i think that it is a superficial level. it comes to the fact that large corporations get about $1 trillion in you will lead in

subsidies and tax credits. annually inion subsidies and tax credits. one of the things that we need to address are more progressive taxes. one of the proposals is cutting $500 million out of the community clinics. that will be counterproductive. that will wind up costing more in the long run. host: thank you for your call. we want to remind our viewers and listeners that later on in the program we will be talking about the role of the children's hospitals. we have got a guess that will be discussing the role of hospitals in the health-care system and the impact on proposed

republican spending cuts. that will be at 9:15 eastern time later this morning. baltimore, md., line for democrats. robert, turn your television down, ok? caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to talk about the disparity between the corporate-owned democrats and corporately owned republicans. it seems to me that one of the biggest differences, if there is one, is that the republicans seem to be so staunchly oppose against anything that would remotely threatened the bottom line of their corporate masters. they are definitely not for any kind of regulation.

regulation would, for the most part, lower business opportunities. yet at the same time if they were worried about the deficit, that would not have granted this tax break in this last session. i cannot believe they're willing to put us further into debt so as not to aggravate their corporate masters. host: indiana, run. how does political polarization affect the job? caller: to be honest with you, sir, this agreement is a good thing if it is done with etiquette and class. right now we are at a crossroads in america. we do not have any money. we are broke. it is just ridiculous to keep

piling on. nothing should be off the table. from farmers to foreign aid. this is ridiculous. if they want this health care, why not adopt it into their own house in congress? this is a ridiculous thing. all that we need for tort reform, like they have in -- all that we need our tort reform, like they have in britain. insurance companies across state lines. the third one is a flat consumption tax. every time we help another country like iran and iraq, why do they instantly go to a flat tax system? it is the most crucial thing

that we need to. host: on the federal page this morning he mentioned congressional pay. written this morning --

host: back to the phones. well lake, new jersey. william, you are on "washington journal." caller: it is a shame why the congress cannot operate. i think that some of the basic reasons are that congress has the bowed down, each individual has to bowed down to businesses and lobbies. political contributions should only be from natural persons. they should only be able to contribute to the senators and congressmen of their state. they have to follow what the

national committee says, or they will get cut off. lobbyists are big business, controlling the government. the individual has no say in government anywhere -- anymore. host: you are saying that the polarization comes from outside sources? caller: from outside sources. once he is out there, he is trying to get money to get reelected. host: randolph, new jersey, bill, republican line. go ahead. caller: i would like to say two things. one, congress should be more diversified. these groups are just out for their own people. you have districts being

represented by the belief of the congressman. as a voter that both once every four years, it is time that the american people vote for all of these congressional bills. i think that the american people should be able to go to the voting polls and vote for it. host: more from "the national journal."

host: back to the phones. pennsylvania, democratic line, linda. caller: hello. my party used to be independent. in 2007 of changed to democratic. in many of our states we have primaries where you have to be one or the other to vote at all. senator arlen specter had to switch parties in order to even have a voice.

to say the things that he was 4 and the things that he was against. i voted for him in the primary. that did not work. the primaries are set up so that each individual party has their radical side winning. host: do think that there would be less polarization if they were open primaries in states and districts democrats -- states and districts? caller: especially independent voters that become independent because of the parties being so locked up. host: aberdeen, new jersey, leonard. good morning. caller: good morning. host: how does political

polarization of fact the congress? caller: in their ability -- it impedes their ability to go out in service of the electorate. i think that the electorate votes for them to go out and represent the country as a whole. once you get involved in polarization, you find out that these groups seem to have a tendency to look at their constituency rather than the country as a whole. looking at the shape of the country right now, everyone is by and large being affected. but when it comes down to the actual allocation and disbursement of fairness, but we find out is that the general educated or uneducated find out those at the lower end are talking about economically that

do not fall into a certain category financially. they wind up bearing the brunt of the hardship. because of the polarization, you have a constituency that no longer represents the whole. rather they seem to lean towards, as you see now, there is an entirely different initiative once the house changes. you get a group of people that is against health care. they are against anything that represents a significant portion of the working constituency who are struggling the most out here. host: leonard, independent line. in "the washington post," "analysts fear that governments may default on large debts."

host: the article goes on to say --

host: back to the phones. hollywood, florida. democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call this morning. host: how does political polarization that that congress? caller: it is completely deleterious. there is too much lobbying in washington. actually, i feel it should be legal -- illegal. and they seem to be more worried with ruling than they do in governing. it is unfortunate. host: niagara falls, new york,

john, good morning. caller: i believe that the government should have term limits for at least no more than two terms. the president is only allowed one. it should come from the people in the state. it should not come from outside of that. as for lobbyists, that is illegal. just like the last person said. it should definitely be brought before congress. if anyone has to do for the united states, it should be lobbied before everyone in congress. not individuals taking off on junkets and golf tours, stuff like that.

host: we have gotten this twitter message, writing -- host: back to the phones. california, olivia, good morning. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: great. there is definitely polarization. i hope that you will allow me to speak. i am a bit nervous. i am a democrat, but i am not an enemy of any republican or independent. when republicans were voted into office this time, they took $800 billion and gave the richest 1% of tax cuts that were supposed

to get jobs. at the same time they have these propaganda machines dividing the american people against each other. your neighbors, they went to church on sunday. for the last few years they have been telling us that your neighbor was not a christian because they are a democrat. across the street you might know someone who lost their house. the previous administration gave $3 trillion in bailout. the banks turned around and did not help your neighbor keep their house, rather giving the people that stole the house a bonus of $1 billion each.

back to how this affects congress. caller: because the people that have been in there and lying to the american people -- democrat, republican, or independent -- they went to the supreme court to ask if they could live. host: we believe that there. the headline from "the washington times" this morning, "white house run could be in a crowded field." host: the article also says --

host: c-span uncovered a major portion of that convention. if you want to see that, you can go to our web site and check the video library. cedar point, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning to you. i hate the polarization. the bill for get people in there

that care, -- they will forget people in there that care, what to make a difference. host: in terms of term limits, what are you suggesting for members? caller: to terms the three terms would be fair. it would give people that actually cared and wanted to do their jobs, rather than the senate people or congress people, taking their money elsewhere. not enough people vote in this country. if we forced change automatically. host: michael, tennessee. caller: good morning. i agree with the last caller. i believe that senators and

congressmen should only have two terms. three at the max. i do not like when they say that this country is broke. this country is extremely rich in oil and natural gas. most of it is in our national parks. there is enough oil in alaska to run this country for 200 years. why not use that to pay off the deficit? i think that republicans and democrats should work together to solve this problem instead of being childish and going after power plays. host: steve: in illinois sent this e-mail -- host: steve by an illinois sent this e-mail. host: back to the phones.

tina, do you think that polarization makes every issue like a sports competition and irrelevant? caller: absolutely. worse than that, the puzzle goes up in the opposite directions. you cannot help but break the center and make it go helter- skelter. what is happening out in my opinion, and i am not a young person, i have seen this country go completely helter- skelter over the last couple of years. it is very sad. i believe that term limits should be mandatory. because of the fact that as soon as someone gets in office, they are busy fundraising for the next election. i have watched on c-span. congress, few people are even there. i do not even know where they

are. they do not read the bills. i could never vote on something if i did not have the information. i am going to think c-span. i will tell you, in the last couple of years i have become aware -- through c-span -- congress is a big, fat joke. we are spending all of this money in other countries trying to make them like ourselves and we are a big, fat joke. host: howard, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: happy black history month. this polarization thing, this is like communism. i do not see anyone in congress that represents the william mckinley policies. we are watching. i am talking about doctors

against pharmaceuticals and law- enforcement against prohibition. the supreme court failed us as well. thank you. host: md., charles, republican line, go ahead. caller: part of the biggest problem that we have is that congress is not able to differentiate between social issues and economic issues. host: tell us what you think the differences are and why it affects the polarization of congress. host: -- caller: the energy policy, two years ago we had $5 per gallon gasoline and it is headed that way again. offshore drilling, nuclear, natural gas. victims pushing for natural gas. when gas went down to $30 per

barrel two years ago, it went off the table. everyone was talking about wind, solar, and other things. as 1% of our energy needs, fuel for the next 25 to 30 years. congress needs to focus on the solutions and have the bills written before they are voted on. all that they are doing is voting on a concept and bureaucrats write down over the next year or so. no one knows what they are voting for and there are too many outside influences between democrats and republicans. if they say one thing, democrats say the other. instead of finding a solution that is best for the country and leaving partisan politics alone. host: we are going to take a break from phone calls to check in with the associated press

middle east editor and reporter currently in cairo. he is the desk editor in cairo, currently in libya. from "the los angeles times" this morning, "libyan rebels drawn towards the capital." what are you seeing? caller: that is the big question out here. how much support and the bubbles mostar? they have the support of the civilians and remnants of the old army. and there are a string of cities on the eastern side that have been trying to gather weapons and organize the military. a few days ago they said that they have an operations room. now they are trying to move

closer. before they can get to tripoli, they have one big obstacle in the center of the coast. it is like a home town of muammar gaddafi. it is heavily armed. figuring out the movement is difficult. some generals have said that they are reorganizing. from what little i have seen of the remnants of the military is that it is not very together. lots of people firing guns into the air in the back of pickup trucks. this is the problem with the military, muammar gaddafi kept it week to avoid a military coup. he wanted to make sure that he had no challengers. he had his private security brigades, military plans, and weakened military.

right now the weather -- rebelled for it -- right now the rebel forces are trying to put together a force that can challenge muammar gaddafi. many are saying that they're waiting for the west to do the job for them. i am not sure that we are ever going to get pitched battles. or at least not yet. host: there is a picture on the front page of "the financial times" showing people fleeing the unrest in libya. how much refugee action have you seen? with all of the people leaving libya, will there be folks to fight against the current administration? or might this forces -- or might the forces that support him be able to eventually bring him back into power? caller: there are two cities

defining tripoli. these cities have both gone over to the rebels. they have been fighting directly, on and off, for the last few days. most of those refugees are not libyans. they are mostly foreign workers. i came from the eastern side and i saw many workers fleeing back to egypt. they were the lucky ones. they made it back to the border and there was local transportation. in the west is not that easy. many of them are sleeping overnight in the cold until they were brought in to temporary camps. that is the heartbreaking scene. the ones on the eastern side, it is quite calm. much of the industry here is

grinding to a halt. yesterday i was at an evacuation for british commonwealth citizens. a british destroyer pulled up and they were loading oil workers. when i asked them, they said that they turned off the pumps. oil, the main export of libya has stopped pumping. ships have stopped coming to the ports to pick up the oil. a major revenue stream that has stopped. host: with foreign -- foreigners leading and how long before it starts to affect the economy and ets?people in the strea caller: it is a waiting game at this point. no one is sure when the fighting will start. there are already shortages in

tripoli. the east is not doing so badly. when i checked that one oil terminal, they said that their natural gas was still pumping along the pipeline. keeping power plants and desalinization plants running. water and energy in the eastern half of the country. if it turns into a waiting game, this could be the deciding factor. host: final question for paul schemm this morning -- over the weekend the united states and several other major countries imposed sanctions on libya and on the muammar gaddafi administration. what has been the reaction from the people on the street about the imposition of those sanctions? caller: i am on the eastern side, they are on the anti- muammar gaddafi movement.

for the most part they are asking for obama, wondering where the americans are. they do not want foreign aggression, but they are looking for more rhetoric moving against muammar gaddafi. he is killing his own people, something people have been very upset about. as far as the self, he said he will fight to the last man. it is very clear that he does not care a great deal about what the international community thinks of him. host: paul schemm, associated press middle east editor, stationed in cairo, reporting to us today from libya. thank you. caller: my pleasure. host: another 10 minutes in this

segment. we will continue our discussion regarding the cover story of "the national journal." ratings showing that congress was more polarized last year than any other year since the rankings began. our question has to do with how you think the polarization in congress is affecting the way that congress is getting things done. new hampshire, democratic line. caller: thank you for baking by col. i think that polarizing this absolutely -- thank you for taking my call. i think that polarizing, this issue -- in new hampshire, going back to read from blue, what they seem to forget is that they were elected to go to washington, go to the state

house, elected to go to work on the issues that affect the constituents. trying to bust the unions? next year we will have a celebration of workers that came together to speak 85 different languages to say they needed better working conditions. politicians seem to be bought out by corporate interests, which is the most disturbing. it is about their personal agenda. this morning there was a letter of an "the concord monitor" that said "hitler abolished the unions. when fascism comes to america, it will be waving a flag and carrying a cross. how scary is that? it describes the deep party.

airwaves have been blocked by business interests. we do not have the nightly news or independent reporting. people use c-span 2, in throw out wrong comments and it does not get challenged. i am a small business owner. i know about wages, health care. when we get back to business owners making five times what the employee does, instead of 100 times, we might start to invest in america again. our elected officials really need to start talking to each other and leaving the lobbyist behind. talk about what is important to the people. our country is great. we are going to alternative fuels, the next generation will be the greatest american generation. host: we will leave it there. more under the sub head of

"national division." host: back to the phones. baltimore, maryland. go ahead.

let's go to las vegas, nevada. charles, you are on "washington journal." caller: hello. thank you. host: guess? caller: you guys were saying that it seems confusing to you. that you do not understand why congress does what they want to do or do. one person had mentioned that congress is a big joke. if american people cannot understand why congress does what they do, they are a big joke as well. if they allow those people to take money from big

corporations, why would they not expect those people to do what the corporations want? host: ted nugent has an op-ed in this morning's "washington times." "when the going gets tough, democrats run the." host: back to the phones. phoenix, ariz., democratic line. go ahead.

caller: it is ridiculous how the media has tried to separate republicans and democrats. host: how is the media doing that? caller code just like brian l., like you are talking about polarization. years ago republicans were labeled as conservatives and vice versa. the problem is that we need to encourage people to vote. that is the biggest problem. host: more people going to the polls will bring things together? coast -- caller: i think there will be a greater understanding. host: thank you for the call. poughkeepsie, new york.

caller: rather than fighting in the congress between republicans and democrats, they should have assigned seating based on the state they are in and their congressional district. lay it right down in numbers. from alabama and conventional district no. 1, it just lay it right out on a line. host: what did you think about the effort to mix up the seating during the president's state of the union address? caller: it was very effective. it caused more civility in the house. host: from "the financial times"

this morning, a u.s. probe into tax evasion. including israeli lenders. host: our last call regarding polarization in congress comes from vermont. good morning, buddy. caller: by do not believe that the people cannot stitch the state back together again i use to deliver coca-cola to the factories and all those people

were out of work. without a job, you cannot live. republicans are going to finish us off. democrats are just as bad there is no more money here to be had. host: we are going to take a short break. coming up, the impact of the protests in the arab world will be our topic. we have a look at congress returning from their break and considering spending cuts. we will be right back. you are watching "of the washington journal." ♪

>> as the nation's governors meet in washington, use the c- span video library to learn more about the nation's chief executives. you can hear state of the state addresses, free, on-line. >> ibm cited -- excited about what happens to society when it gets boring. not the moment when a shiny new tool shows up in changes the world, but it is when your mother takes it for granted that she can upload her video to

youtube. host: the feature. -- >> the future. >> un "washington today" we will talk with the experts, politicians, and journalists as we put the day's events into perspective. the story that matters to you the most, every day on c-span radio. 90.1 fm in the washington baltimore area. satellite channel 132. or go online apple c-span.org. -- or go online at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: terence samuel is here to talk about congress returning and if they will keep the government from shutting down. from where you have been reporting, is that going to happen? or are people packing their desks? guest: it looks like a done deal. the potential for a government shutdown looked inevitable at one point. in reality it seems that no one thought that it would happen and over the last week, particularly starting friday, essentially by sunday democrats called and we could be back to the same problem in a few weeks. host: take us back to the problem from friday and work us

through the weekend. what does the announcement mean? guest: coming into last week you essentially had house republican proposals to cut $61 billion. in the middle of the week democrats were saying that that could not be workable. friday, republicans said that they would do 82 weeks continuing resolution. but it must include -- over that period. looking at what they have proposed in the middle of the week, as a result you had senator conrad on sunday saying that that was acceptable to him how the democratic congress

works the senator reid talks to every senator going on television on sunday. that was not just senator conrad talking for himself. i think that we will see a deal this week. host: also talking on sunday was chris van pollan. he was talking about congress and whether we will be able to avoid a deficit. this is what we had -- what he had to say. >> we are very focused on avoiding a shut down. it appears to be the case for now. of month's republican leadership and democrats in congress. -- amongst republican leadership and democrats in congress. there is a lot of pressure from new republicans in the house to have their way or shut down the government, if that is the

consequence. there remains a real danger that it will do that. that cooler heads will not prevail at the end of the day. host: will they be able to get this done in two weeks? orpen have they kicked the can down the road for a couple of -- or have they kick the can down the road for a couple of weeks? guest: there is clearly a willingness on both sides to have a republican shut down. republicans are clearly scarred from the 1995-1996 shut down, where they took a bath. everyone is saying that things are not the same and that this is different. which is true. senate democrats have a lot of political exposure here. 23 members up for election with 10 republicans.

i think that we see that it has been called over and over again. i think it is a game of chicken and on either side there are political consequences to what people see as the government's inability to function on even the smallest things. shut down the government, i think that people are shaking their heads and walking away. i do not think that anyone wants to deal with those consequences. host: house republicans attempted a conference call on friday. this is what rep. eric cantor had to say. we will listen and get your response. >> yesterday there was a report that democrats might be willing to break and join us in cutting spending. an indicator that we might be moving in the right direction

and a testament to the changing culture in washington. how rogers and his appropriations committee are hard at work. they will post results later this afternoon. the two big messages being unveiled are the $4 million in spending cuts, comprise the determination reductions, and reductions from the president obama fiscal year 2012 budget requests. funding that was locked into place that they have sworn off following the leadership of house republicans. host: terence samuel, your thoughts? guest: house republicans have to make the of this promise to cut

spending. in some ways they have a tougher sell about how much a compromise. then you hear eric cantor saying that we need democrats to break and support some of this spending. he is not just playing partisan politics. he needs help from democrats to sell some of the cuts to the very large republican majority in the house. tea party-inspired republicans are not saying when to this idea of compromise -- saying when -- sanguine to this idea of compromise. i think that what you are looking at is eventually one side or the other is not going to be able to live with what the other side is suggesting. that is where you will see compromise.

i think that the president in the white house so far has remained above the fray but some point they will have to engage. it will not necessarily be two weeks or three weeks from now, even months, b. host: here to make us sense of the returning congress this week, terence samuel, author of "the upper house." if you would like to get involved in our conversation, for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages through e-mail and prepare -- twitter.

our first call comes from melinda in texas. democratic line. caller: i am calling in regards to the compromise and that republicans have with democrats. this is about the fact that bill clinton had a really good administration. republicans are not going to want another democrat dennis successful in the demonstration. i find it strange that everything that they have is directed to the working poor. right here in texas, we pay lot. i am proud to be a citizen. soldiers go on to fight in our wars. thank you to the tea party,

republicans, and hypocrites. we are taking out the proposal on the backs of the working poor. guest: i think that the political arguments that over late this debate will become increasingly -- republicans are trying to address promises that were made during the last campaign and over the last two years. as we here in washington, everything is about the next election. but you have seen from republicans in terms of cuts on spending and deficit reduction, it may not be in tune with what the american people want. democrats were so focused on health care when people talk about jobs, democrats are

betting that republicans might be doing the same thing but spending reduction. host: ill., independent line, libya. caller: thank you. i am going to prize a couple of features. a timely historian identified this method of self destruction. the party that was once in power refuses to give up control. through the process of destruction or not cooperating, there is entering into different groups, and one month of seven ingredients -- the ultimate

ingredients -- the barbarians coming into power. i read debt for about one year and half. -- i read that for one year and a half. i thought that the methods of mitch mcconnell were methodical, based on this process already identified by arnold tonguebee. do not recognize this process as intentional the president lost his opportunity to identify this process and show it for what it was. i hope you will follow through and that c-span will have some sort of program to build on this identification. i would appreciate that.

host: she is given us a lot of stuff to tchew on. guest: you are hearing from her what most americans say in this debate, are they just playing political games in congress? when we get into some of these debates about whether the government should shutdown over a few cuts here or there, the larger question is why can't congress to stop pushing appropriations bills every year? in some ways, i think we have seen the government that is supposed to legislate and govern the country become a kind of reflective of this ideological divide in the country. more and more, that is what it

is reflective of instead of doing the people's work. host: there is a cover story and the title is "ghosts of shutdowns past." it says the nation is engaged in a shooting war in iraq and afghanistan. guest: what the we are seeing here is clearly the compunction at to make comparisons between

2011 and 1995. republicans like to say it is completely different. the government is not going to shut down and even if it does, it's not christmas time. you go back to the 1995 shutdown which was december 16 through january 6. and 14, actually. i think nobody knows exactly how this plays out. that, i think, is what is driving the game of chicken. people are not sure how the political consequences will flow from this. and so, even though everybody -- some people think republicans will not do it because they are afraid of a repeat of 1995. democrats will not do it because they have some stake in this in a different way because they control the senate. 23 democrats up for reelection next year. >> it is not like yogi berra would have us believe it is deja vu all over again.

may guest: be if you need a passport and the government shutdown it would feel like deja vu. host: you are on the line from oklahoma. caller: it is kind of a double- edged sword for us as republicans because we voted in the election for these republican congressman because we were concerned about spending and we were concerned. there's no money left. but we don't want the government to shut down, but we did not vote for these guys to reach across the aisle. we voted for them to cut the spending and get it under control. i don't know where people think this money is going to come from if we don't cut it. thanks for having me. host: who's your congressman? >> john sullivan. host: have you been pleased with his performance so far? caller: i have. host: what was one of the key items that made you vote for him?

caller: he campaigned for cuts in spending. that was one of his biggest campaign items. host: if he turns on that promise in two years, would you vote for him? caller: i think i would be disappointed, but i would vote for him. a government set down, we've been through it before. none of us want that. after a compromise with the democrats sometimes, but i don't see where they think the money is coming from. we are out of money. host: thanks. terence samuels, go ahead. guest: it's a political dilemma that republicans face. you cannot campaign on an issue and then win and have a chance to govern and suddenly it is more complicated than the singular issue. what you have is how to keep your promise and not seem

destructive and overly determined to keep the promise so that the consequences seem bad for the country? host: ken on the democrat line. caller: good monica. i will try to be quick about this. i wish there was the republicans over the house and the senate so that they could do this shutdown and we could see how it turns out. i think this hold the party thing and the shutdown and the problems it would cause is a power grab. if you look at what the supreme court did recently where they basically recognized corporations as citizens to contribute as much money as they want, then you look at what wisconsin is trying to do and some other republicans break the backs of the unions, no one is

trying to break the back of the corporations and how much money they are giving. if the unions are not around to support the democrats, you will see more and more money like from the two-party. dick armey and that lot. i wish the republicans controlled both houses because i wanted to shut down the government. host: silver spring, maryland, ken. caller: i bet the republicans would wish they were in charge of the senate as well and this would be a fight between the republican congress and the president. that would actually be much more closely paralleled to 1995. i think they don't want to repeat that. what you are hearing from ken is a sense of what you are seeing in this two-week fight is about the larger issues of the country that in some ways we are

not dealing with. the economy, how to revive the economy. is it going to be tax cuts or cuts in spending or incentives with stimulus spending? i think that discussion is probably coming in a larger way than we have seen, if we can manage to keep the government running while this emerges. host: james in southeast louisiana sends us this message. he writes that we need to get this cr to the end of the year and then fundamental tax form, then completely rewrite the 2012 budget. which leads me to my next question, the other major consideration facing congress as a comeback this week is the various cabinet secretaries and agency heads coming up in a constant parade starting tomorrow who will make a case

for the budgets of their particular departments or agencies. what can we expect from the agency heads, the cabinet heads, and what kind of response will they get from the congressman? guest: we start with the interior secretary. i think that's tomorrow. what is interesting about this is that this is what the process is supposed to look like. the executive branch, through the cabinet secretary, comes to the congress, makes a case for a budget, the president sends his budget proposal, which we have seen. a lot of the interior budget in the president's proposal is significantly cut in some ways. and then that process is supposed to lead to some kind of orderly appropriations bill that goes through committee the add to that gets dealt with on the floor. it does not happen.

at the breakdown in the process. in some ways this feels not on point. it would be interesting to see if it works this year. host: do you imagine it will be even less on the mark this year because the republicans control the house and the democrats control the senate? when the secretary of state goes in front of the house foreign affairs committee, the reception and the questioning will be significantly different than when he goes in front of the senate foreign relations? guest: that is correct. usually this process also becomes a discussion of policy. yes, you want money to run this agency, but what policy are we trying to implement? how should be fixed this? i think the discussion, certainly on the house side, is not about policy, it is about spending and how to reduce it. host: albany, georgia, brian on

our independent line, on with terrence samuel. caller: i'm a first-time caller. i appreciate you taking my call. thank you. basically, i have been a long time watcher a c-span and it's a great channel. i guarantee the entire country appreciates your being on tv all the time. basically, my concern is you have these rich congressmen and senators who are written before they even get in there. it is a millionaire's club near the average american cannot even get in there and help run this country. we have smart people. i'm really nervous. we have smart people out here that could run this country just as well as these old farts in office. these guys get in there and get power. they never get voted out. people keep voting them in, republican or democrat. i don't trust either party.

i think they are corrupt. they turn their backs on the american people for corporate america. when you run for office, it is not supposed to be about how much power or money or influence you can have in your time, it is about serving the country, making military stronger, looking out for the middle class working americans person, and making the military stronger. unfortunately, -- the unfortunate matter is that when a politician is get in office, the longer they stay in office, the more corrupt they become. host: we will leave it there, brian. guest: this is a shameless plug, but "national journal"

has dealt with this. it is the most polarized congress ever since we have been keeping records. what we see is the most liberal republican is more conservative than the most conservative democrat. there's simply no overlap. i think what you are hearing -- i think that is a reflection of what the populace has become. expensive, meaning that you have to have some money or able to raise a lot of money to do it. and what gets you elected is not so much ideals about serving the country or running the government, but does so much of this is based on ideology and people win on that and they go to the congress and that's reflected. it's a lesson about efficacy in

government and ideology in party. host: aaron on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have to make a comment especially about republicans. there are republicans that are in the senate and they are willing and democrats secretly. they might as well be democrats. then there are democrats who will have republican uniforms on. these people keep getting voted into office because people do not know exactly what the core issues are that they are voting , and that is an especially for republicans pretended to be democrats and pretended to state agendas. -- pertaining to state addendas. people locally and on state levels don't know the exact issues that democrats are voting on. there are democrats that are

really republicans appear they votes and they side with republicans. these people need to be brought to the forefront. that's why we see the rise of the tea party. the fundamentals of the two- party are great. it sustains the constitutionality of america and that's good. but these republicans -- these they are whoo -- causing more trouble to america because they prey on minorities and they vote with the republican agenda. host: go ahead, sir. guest: people think that their party representative should reflect a certain orthodoxy, whether it is a republican or democrat. when you don't do that, you face criticism like you just heard. you are republican and democrat clothing or vice versa.

somebody voted on an issue that went against that orthodoxy, but represent a compromise. the tax deal during the end of the last session of congress being host: a prime example at to theinet headsecretaries, hill this week, what -- who will get the most attention? which topic will get the most focus either in the house or the senate? guest: i think they health care still is a big deal for republicans in the house. you will see a lot of questions about that. the house will vote this week to repeal one provision of that, the 1099 tax reporting provision

that passed the senate, that should be interesting. i think you will see a lot of health care questions. host: back to the phones, san diego, california, democrat line, go ahead. caller: i'm sorry, yes. one issue that i have is that i think that the banks should bail out the state's and that the world bank perhaps should bail out the u.s. banks and a lot of these other countries that we supported and rebuilt could somehow come back and rebuild the u.s. thank you for c-span. know enough about that to have a thoughtful comment. it does suggest the reach of the issues when you get talking

about what the congress is doing and what people expect of it. host: will there be much discussion in the coming weeks about tarp and whether or not it needs to be extended or rerouted? guest: yes, there will be a fair tarpt of talk amounttabout because there's money there that republicans see as a way to address their spending cuts and it is a big ideological issue that people think should not have happened. what actually happens with tarp beyond the discussion, it's hard to predict or even imagined. much of that money is either no longer being requested, not being spent, some of the money has been paid back. it's clearly a big political issue for republicans. host: james on our independent line out of new jersey. caller: good morning.

i would like to read something and say this is the reason our forefathers came up with the declaration of independence. it says "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles as organizing power is in such form as to them shall seem most public to affect safety and happiness." what we need to do is all the american people, independents, democrats, republicans, need to stand together and allow our government to know we're not going to stand for what you are doing to the people because you're not thinking about us. we are the ones suffering. . host: a thank you. from take another call louisville, kentuckylouisvillepat. caller: thank you for taking my call.

last year, 2010, president obama presented the budget that the republicans are working with right now. that is the continuation that ends on march 4. democrats have gotten really busy on this budget in january of 2011, 11 months after it was presented. since it is time for the 2012 budget to be presented by the president, a lot of people do not think that october, 2011, is where the congress, which the house of representatives was predominately democrat. all of a sudden they have this

horrible feeling buchwald is going to fall apart -- that the world in the united states is going to fall apart now the republicans 11 months later are dealing with it. now it's over one year. i find this -- and the media does not make much of this. democrats could have spudone something about it they wanted to guest: the democrats were not able to pass a budget last year. or the year before that. it has not actually happens in a long time. at the we are looking at exactly that case playing out of this year. i cannot imagine what would be different in fiscal 2012. host: the congress conceivably would pass a continuing resolution to carry us through the end of the year? and at this time next year or in

december or november of this year they will consider a continuing resolution for 2012? guest: host: exactly when do we exactly. the debate should be about how do you fund the government starting october 1 through september of 2012. we are not going to get to that because we're still talking about the current fiscal year. host: was it any easier for the administration to get their budgets past when it was an all democratic congress or did they have similar problems as to the ones they are having now? guest: similar problems. whatever you pass in the house, the republicans will be able to pass a budget in the house, it will go to the senate, and the

senate was set up to make things difficult and they lived up to. the to host: some of our callers have suggested, it would not be any easier, the budget process, if both chambers were of the same party. guest: not unless it was a big enough majority as president obama had during the health care debate. to be a will to overcome that 60 rule to kill filibuster's which this budget will surely face. host: democrat line. caller: i would like to know when congress is going to do their job. when are they going to take a cut? these wars need to stop. that is a big problem.

and they need to stop the lobbyists and all of the bailouts for these other countries. why don't we build our own oil? we have this. i agree with the man in georgia. i think we need bill clinton back in. host: thanks for your call. your thoughts? guest: that is the argument, where do you cut it? intoar's certainly factor the decision, voters' decisions at the end of the bush administration, in some ways punishing the administration for those wars, not just the cost, but the situation we found ourselves in. then we saw congress go from republican to democrat in 2006. and very quickly the topic

turned to the economy and the wars were not top of mind. people are clearly frustrated with whoever is in charge and what they are doing. the white house and the majority of different parties in both houses are dealing with that right now host: presenting the -- host: they are talking about cutting programs, but they are sort of staying away from defense, medicare, and medicaid. most economists will tell you that unless you go and make drastic cuts in those areas, that you are really not going to have the kind of cuts in the deficit, in the debt, that people are looking for. is there anybody on capitol hill right now if that is willing to pick up that mantle and lead that charge and say let's cut

some defense spending, let's cut the medicare, let's cuts in medicaid? guest: there are people that say they're willing to do it. there was the house budget committee chairman who was asked over and over again whether he would tackle entitlements in this budget that we will see some time in the next few weeks? eventually he said, yes. it's a big chunk of the money, a big chunk of the problem and, yes, we are going to do it. these are not just beloved and cherished programs by american voters. they are protected by large money interests and the fight to reform those is going to be a huge one. it is hard to see how --one answer to your question of who is willing to tackle this is that the people who are not up for reelection. host: to that end, does chairman

ryan have the support of gop leaders like the speaker, john boehner, the majority leader as well? mr. mccarthy to do something different in cutting these entitlement programs? question about whether he would include entitlements in his budget were addressed in cantor's announcement that house republicans were willing and eager to do this. so, yes. what that actually looks like in terms of proposals and legislation is difficult to say. once you get into the debate about raising the retirement age and social security, cutting medicare, cutting medicaid, you are up against a huge lobby and

a fierce group of people willing to defend it on the hill and off. host: bob in indianapolis, independent mind. caller: thank you very much for the opportunity to talk. i just wanted to say that congress cannot keep going on spending all their money and having the media say that it is spending. it is not spending. it is taxing us more money. i used to being a democrat from california. rush limbaugh's nightmare. now i am an independent. the reason why i am an independent and not a democrat anymore is because the democrats, especially obama since he's been in office and the direction he's going, our taxes are going up. 75% of all of my income. in my older years, how am i going to pay for my home i have

been paying on for 30 years? the property taxes are sky high. it's not just what they are taking from me. now we have the state and local. and the democrats are the worst. host: we will leave it there, bob. guest: you could take issue with the 75% number, but people are concerned about spending. sufficiently concerned. i think you saw a certain amount of revolts in the last midterm. i think you can see clearly that the democrats get it. how they respond to it, how they deal with the perception that they are the party of tax and spend is something that i think they still need to manage, particularly going into 2012 and the president is looking to get reelected. host: the last call comes from

union city, ohio, mary on our republican line. caller: yes, i was thinking that the congressman, i don't believe they understand how the common people live. i would like to suggest that they might limit themselves until they are living like we are. i think that they will learn how valuable a dollar is to us. i am not complaining about my income, but i did lose my husband about six months ago. my incumbents decreased -- income decreased. the example i have of them understanding what it's like is when my husband passed away, i could not -- i had not known until then how other people felt when they lost their family members.

i feel that now i can understand that. so i think maybe that would with the congressman, if they would do something that was really hard on them. host: >> mary, we will leave it there. when the issue comes up regarding congressional pay raises, is there going to be a cry on capitol hill to say why don't we pass on our pay raises this time around? guest: i think you'll see some of that, but it's always hard to get that done. even if we get the famous government shutdown, one of the people exempt from furloughs are the congress. it is stories like that, that will make up the narrative of this debate going forward. host: terrence samuel, "national journal." thanks for being on the program. we will look at the role of

children's hospitals and federal funding been cut from those hospitals in the upcoming budget. after this break, a closer look at the impact of protests and other developments in the arab world with bobby ghosh. he's the author of this magazine in "time" magazine, confronting a dictator and determined to keep power at all costs, expect a bloody old fashioned a civil war. bobby ghosh will be coming to us from new york after this break. first, and upsta update from c- span radio. >> secretary clinton is in geneva about to address senior officials from russia, australia, and the european union. she will make the administration does the case for stronger action on libya. you can hear the secretary of those remarks this morning on c- span radio. two european union sources have just told reporters that the european union has agreed to sanctions against libya's

muammar gaddafi, including an arms embargo, an asset freeze, and davies a ban -- a vis aban. the egyptian president and his family have been banned from travel abroad and ordered their sons impounded. it's the latest measure against mubarak and follows the february 20 order by the prosecutor which froze the assets of the ousted president, his wife, and two sons. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> experience american history on c-span3 every weekend, starting saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern predict a decline a.m. eastern. you will hear first-person accounts from people who have shaped modern america on oral history. and the country's best known history riders over the past decade. travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events estate and aired during the 150th anniversary of the civil war.

visit college classrooms across the nation as professors delve into america's past during lectures in history. join curators, collectors, and historians behind-the-scenes at museum exhibits and historic sites. and focusing on american president's policies and legacies as told through historic speeches and personal insights from administration officials and experts. on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. get the complete schedule online and sign up to have them e- mailed to you using the c-span alert. >> washington journal continues. host: bobby ghosh joins us from new york, the deputy international editor 4 "time" magazine and the author of this last stand."dafi's how is his last stand going?

can you seriously expect him -- can he seriously expect to remain in power for much longer? guest: it is very bloody. this man clearly is in the throes of a grand illusion that things can go back to the way they were a couple of weeks ago. he, his sons, and some elements of the army that remain loyal to him and a large number mercenaries are still attacking rebel forces, but they are beginning to surround them. there are towns east of tripoli that have fallen and the our towns to the west. the rebels have now been gathering strength. they were able to bring down one of gaddafi's jet airplanes, which was attacking them. it seems like they have also managed to get their hands -- the rebels, on some of the oil installations and have begun to export oil once again. they are figuring out how to

make sure that the revenues from that goes into the hands of the rebels other than the adopt the government. it is beginning to feel like he is cornered in tripoli. -- they are figuring out how to make that go into the hands of the rebels as opposed to the government. host: who are the people coming into a fight to support gaddafi? some members of his own tribe and other tribes that remain loyal. there are mercenaries, people from neighboring countries like chad, sudan, sierra leone. lots of african countries that over the years have had long and

bloody civil wars and you have a generation of young men trained in the art of fighting. many of them were financed by gaddafi in the 1980's and 1990's. those countries may no longer have civil wars, but they don't have an of jobs, so you have a large number young men with training in fighting and no jobs. so they are available, as guns for hire. so gaddafi has been able to tap into that. host: these mercenaries are coming struggle for the cash and not necessarily because they support gaddafi's philosophy? guest: that is probably an accurate decision. some of them may come from groups that over the years were financed by gaddafi when he financed civil wars and unrest in many parts of africa. so there may be some that have loyalty or a sense of we need to do for him what he did for us. my suspicion is the majority of these people are coming for the

money. host: there's a lead story this morning, "protests in the arab world grows." phoenicians get rid of their prime minister. -- tunisians. is this a lesson we will see played out in some of the other countries that have also had similar types of uprisings? guest: that would not surprise me. countries that are new to democracy. especially the ones that are coming out of long and dramatic eras of despotism. these things can be messy. we have seen that in iraq and many other countries around the world, not just in the arab world. what is happening in tunisia is

they have managed to get rid of the prime minister, who is a holdover from the premise regime. he was close to the previous president. it was surprising to me that he survived this long. i would expected him to go very soon after president ben ali did. the young people revolting against ben ali made it clear from the beginning that they were not going to stand for this man being prime minister. this is essentially an aftershock of what happened in mid january when the previous dictator was overthrown. host: we're speaking with the "time" magazine deputy international editor, coming to us from new york. we are talking about the upheaval in arab world. we would like you to get involved in the conversation. the numbers are on your screen. 202-628-0205 for all other

calls. we will show you video that we have gotten from libya and supplied to us. our first call from bobby ghosh comes from modesto, california, on the democrat line. caller: i just want to say something. i watched tv a lot. all the countries that get into america, america. we have our own problems. we are working for $10 an hour. we don't have power. america cannot even help its own people, let alone the other people. it is ridiculous. all the money that they spend. i just hope that hillary clinton runs. i am voting for her. why did we have to get involved with all these other people's problems when we have all of these problems?

host: in terms of foreign policy and u.s. diplomacy, why does the u.s. need to get involved in the middle east at this stage? guest: i have good news for i leaned. these people don't need american help and they're not asking for it. don't want it. there would probably be large numbers of them resentful if the u.s. interfered much. one of the key points of the arab revolution and the reason why it's been successful is this was begun by arabs, for arabs with minimal u.s. intervention appeared the u.s. role in egypt was mainly to train egyptian military -- restrain egyptian military from attacking its own people. these people are not looking for handouts and certainly not from the u.s. in their lifetime they have only known one ruler, one dictator,

most of them appear that dictator was supported and propped up by the u.s. so they are not necessarily looking to the u.s. to give them money or support. they would like the united states not to intervene much. nobody wants a return to the bad old days of two months ago, and certainly not obama. if you are wondering where the u.s. goes next, given its own constraining situation, helping to finance these new governments in these countries, i think answer is no. host: earlier in the program we spoke with a journalist in benghazi right now. he says a lot of people on the streets were asking where is our help from the united states and obama? guest: in part that's because of the expectation that was set up by the administration when the president went to cairo and made

the famous speech to the muslim world. he set himself up for that. people will hold him to those standards. in the real sense, if libya needs international support, it is much more likely to come to europe because the europeans are right there. europeans have better relationships with people in libya than the united states. because for so many years libya was persona non grata for the u.s.. they did not accept economic ties or diplomatic ties for a long time. it's much more likely that the french or italians or nato would be involved in any activity than the u.s. host: next call from annapolis, maryland, barbara, in the penn line. caller: morning. i have a question in regard to all the people demonstrating. most of them are young people, obviously. it has to do public creating

jobs over there. obviously, they want a better life. can you kind of give us any idea of how they would build an economy? it is not that they have a lot of technology over there that they are developing. the other comment i have is what do and you see the future role of the u.s. being in the middle east? guest: i think in terms of creating an economy, that varies from country to country. libya has one of the largest oil reserves in the world. it's a major exporter of oil. it only has 6 million people which is the population of new york city. it's not hard to see libya being able to create an economy that has enough jobs for most young people. in each of the population -- in egypt a population is larger --

the population is larger. it would be more difficult to create jobs. it was not that the economy lacked money in libya. the money was being funneled into a handful of people, cronies of the dictator. if the new governments in these countries are able to address the single biggest problem which is corruption, and reduce the corruption, i think the economies will be opening up and creating opportunities for other people as well. no one is suggesting that it's going to be easy. but it is possible. it's not hard to see how countries like egypt and tunisia create jobs for their people. as for the role of the u.s., the u.s. is a major importer of oil. the u.s. is the lone superpower in the world. the u.s. of course will have rol-- role. that will be more hands off and

it has been in the past year this is an opportunity. people who see this as a problem may see this as a challenge for america because we have to change the way we've done business with these people. i would characterize it more as an opportunity for the u.s. to create a relationship finally with arab countries, and our society, rather than arab dictators. we have heardg secretaries of state in the u.s. saying that egypt has been a friend of ours. that's not true. egypt has not. president mubarak has been a friend to the u.s. the u.s. has not tried hard to make friends with actual egyptians. now these are young people not beholden to the u.s., but not anti-american writer. integuments of revolution across the arab world, people have not been burning the american flag.

people not been hanging effigies of the president of the united states. these people are suspicious of the u.s. and u.s. interests. that is understandable why they are suspicious, but they are not anti-u.s. if the obama administration is able to reach out in a friendly and open fashion, think you will see a response from that society which will be equally friendly. host: let's move to tucson, arizona, russell on the republican line. caller: your guest said that these countries are not asking for our help, but they are certainly not refusing it. we are subsidizing mexico. obviously, the money is not getting to the people, because people are coming across the border like flies to the united states. if we want to secure the border,

we have to tell mexico that it's your problem. if you want to continue to get money from the u.s., you seal the border. host: we will try to keep the discussion regarding the discussion we're having with bobby ghosh on the uprisings in the arab world. our next call is from manassas, virginia, arraignment on the democrat line. aller: i haven't more of comment -- i don't have a question, but a comment. the way obama is seen on how he is handling the middle east crisis and everything going on over there, no matter what he does, the republicans will say the opposite. i think a lot of republicans need to notice that. if he went in there and started talking down on libya or anything like that, they would probably say that he's trying to create another war. host: we will leave it there.

bobby ghosh, "time" magazine. guest: the obama administration has been a step behind on all of the arab issues. the cia and the state department could not and did not anticipate any of this. it is easy to see why. over a decade now, washington, whether republican or democrat, washington has quite a tendency to look at the arab countries through a certain prism. and it has not been building relationships with the society's rather than individuals. these and people who have risen against their dictators particularly. the u.s. has very little understanding of these young people.

people around the world, the perceived wisdom was that these young arabs were completely under the thumb of their dictators. they were angry and jobless and frustrated, but they had no political -- no ability to rise as a political force and that they would remain suppressed and kept down by their rulers for eternity. all of those analyses were wrong. these people, these young arabs are not only angry, but they were also able to organize themselves. they were able to use the tools of modern technology, social networking, cell phone texting, and the internet in general. they were also able to get the word out by using the other tools of modern technology like television to get the world more involved, to get their story told for the whole world.

host: you have brought up the youth movement in these uprisings. we have some facts and figures from the u.n. population division, talking about what they call a youth quake. six out of 10 people in the middle east and north africa are under the age of 30. this map goes from the western part of north africa in mauritania where the folks under the age of 30, that is 68%. it goes all the way to the eastern part of the middle east where folks under the age of 30 is 50% of the population in qatar. in libya is 58%. 56% of young arabs use the internet every day. 54% consider television the most trusted source of news.

15% goal to start their own business within the next year. let's go with that 15% and how much of those folks or how much will they be driving the next step in this uprising movement in north africa and the middle east? the people that want to start their own businesses and then get involved in the economy of their respective countries? guest: there's a lot of potential for a new wave of entrepreneurship in the arab and north african world. so much to build economies are controlled by cronyism. if you wanted to open a business, your only chance of success is if you were related in some way to the dictator or a friend of his sons. that is no longer going to be true in many of these countries, which means young people who have a vision and drive and desire to create businesses for themselves or their families will, hopefully, have something

closer to a level playing field. there will still be problems in finances and other problems that young businessmen have around the world. but they will now, at least, have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. if these young people have already shown us that they are technologically very savvy and that they are risk takers. rose up against their dictator, after all. there's room to be optimistic that a new wave of entrepreneurialism will spread across the middle east. that will create jobs for young people in sectors that did not exist previously. host: let's go back to the phones as we continue our conversation with bobby ghosh, "time" magazine editor. jeff is on our independent line. caller: good morning. first of all, is said that average people are suspicious of americans.

i don't know why. american interests, which the whole world knows is pretty much oil. the u.s. sends billions of dollars of aid and technology to these countries alone in the middle east. in return we get aid because of our overindulgence my style -- overindulgent lifestyle. i don't know why they are so suspicious of us. the riches that they have earned over the years -- they are very hard-working people, i agree with that. but the american dollar has brought those countries into the current century. i just don't understand hatred. another point is you said that

they are not asking for u.s. help. i have been monitoring tons of different websites. people are screaming for obama and america's help because of the fact that they are being slaughtered. women and children. that is all. guest: i can help you understand why young arabs are suspicious of the u.s. try to put yourselves in the shoes of a young egyptian, age 30. your entire life, you and only known one ruler, named mubarak's, who was corrupt and prevented your society from reaching their true potential. who is the force that allowed hosni mubarak to remain in power? it was the u.s., protecting its own interest in the region. they kept him in power 30 years. that's a reason to be suspicious of the u.s. if, if i were in

that position. the billions of dollars in technology the u.s. has given to the arab world is true. but the technology was given to a regime, not given to the people. there was very little effort by the u.s. to make sure that it trickled down to ordinary egyptians. mubarak's family has billions of dollars. his army has high technology. if you are an average young egyptian, you are seeing none of that. your life has not changed significantly since the time of your grandfather's. a depressing idea that your life has not improved and will not improve. it's easy to see why these people -- of course they blame mubarak's first and that's why they get rid of him. but naturally they are also going to blame some of the people who enabled mubarak. the u.s. federal to play in that and that is why they are suspicious. the second part of your question, the people calling out

for american intervention are typically people in libya, where their government is slaughtering them. you are not hearing about egyptians or tunisians or bahraini people calling for u.s. help. these are people wanting to rebuild their countries. once tunisia is successful in removing their prime minister, they will not look for an american handout. they are looking for the west's support in preventing the dictator from slaughtering them appear that is a specific kind of help. that's because they don't have the ability to do that themselves. they will not what the u.s. to .ubsidize the libyan economy the libyan economy has a lot of oil. if the country public is gould with anything approaching a non- corrupt, effective government, the libyan economy has an

opportunity to be very rich and ordinary libyans would have a chance to become quite well be very quickly host. host: tom, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have witnessed some of this so-called hate, the perceived bias of the support of israel of the united states. question about syria and demographics of the middle east, egypt and others, i think it is similar to syria, but in serious the son of the former ruler and a dictator and made it to power. he is a young western-wise position, speaks english and so forth. what do you see as the possible evolution of how this might apply to syria? guest: tom, you are correct. syria has the same youth bulge.

more than half its population is less than 30 years old. i am sure that young syrians feel the same kinds of frustrations and disappointments with their governments that others do. syria has had a certain amount of economic success in recent years is one difference. the proportions of people who are unemployed may be slightly smaller than in egypt. it's hard to get accurate figures because these countries are so closed. anecdotally, there are fewer unemployed people in syria and egypt. that is a safe bet. you are right that his son inherited the dictatorship. he is a western trained physician.

he started out with great expectations. there was a lot of hope that coming from the background that he did he would be able to reform syria as well as politically and economically. it would be a space for people to express themselves and hopefully start democratic reforms. it has been nearly 10 years, maybe a little more since bashar asada took over and those expectations have been allied. the syrian regime continues to keep a tight lid on opposition, on any kind of expression of dissent in that country. the one big difference between syria and egypt is that the syrian regime has already shown in the past that it is perfectly capable of slaughtering tens of thousands of its own people. as it has done in the past.

syrian forces killed -- again, nobody has any accurate numbers, but thousands and thousands were killed because they were voicing their opposition to the syrian government. and that has a cooling effect on the people when you know your own government does not shy from shooting down his people. -- its people. that makes people think twice before the rise of. but that having been said, it has been quite constructive that in recent weeks the syrian government has had a efforts to track -- to crack down and has tried to ban facebook and twitter. and shows that the government is worried. if the regime was completely confident in its own position it would not be so worried. there is the same sense ava anger and resentment coming to a boil and syria -- syrian authorities are worried about

it. host: let's take another call. caller: i want to know if [unintelligible] can be persecuted -- want to know if these mercenaries can be held accountable. host: thanks for the call. guest: that is a great question and it is a little murky. the international criminal court has so far made news for going after the big fish, the charles taylor's of this world. it is a little murky what

happens to the foot soldiers. with the international community has the appetite to prosecute these people this question, and i think it is a crucial question. the thing that has essentially forced gaddafi to stab them is to persecute those that were loyal to him. they were told, if you put your guns down now then you will get amnesty unless you have already committed human rights violations. but there is an opportunity for you to walk away now. but if you remain with him and for a debate in the slaughter of innocent libyan people, then we will come after you and come after you very hard when the fighting is done. i think that this is crucial and need to be communicated over and over again to all the people

loyal to mooar gaddafi. host: there is an article in the open " washington times" this morning, "libya a challenge for criminal court." nazis is a little difficult to do to say to go out and prosecute these perceived crimes against humanity when libya -- it seems a little difficult to do, to say to go out and prosecute these perceived crimes against humanity when libya it

is trying to set up its own court. guest: i would imagine that in addition to trying to make some money, i would think that they think they can get away with these crimes and that is why they go and fight outside their own countries. lives are being lost in libya as we speak because of these gaps in international law. host: bobby ghosh is the author of "quaddafi's last stand." baltimore, md., on our line for republicans. caller: 01 to know your thoughts -- i want to know your thoughts on our role in iraq and iraq's effort to provide more

democratic rights to its people. guest: what we are seeing in iraq, unfortunately, does not lend a lot of confidence in the arab world. it took more than 200 days to create a government after elections. it has already proven itself to be very corrupt and not very responsive to its people. which is why iraqis have also been inspired by what happened in egypt and tunisia. over the last week there has been a lot of of rising all over iraq from the north to the sell-off. they have had demonstrations demanding -- from the north to the south. they have been demanding through demonstrations more rights from the government. the rockies won an opportunity to express themselves. they now have the ability to go out without fear and

demonstrate and protest and make themselves heard. and every four years they have the opportunity to elect their own leaders. they have the opportunity to keep out a government that is not responsive to them. in our reporting across the middle east, that is something that has come 0 cross over and over again. we ask young people, what kind of democracy do you want? how much do you know? their knowledge of democracy may not be very deep, but they want every four years or five years and opportunity to decide if their government has been up to the standard they have set. and they want the opportunity, if the government has not met those standards, to change. as i said several times, if you have lived your entire life with one ruler, the opportunity to change your will work every few years is a very powerful

incentive. -- change your ruler every few years is a very powerful incentive. host: if you want to read more, you can go to time.com and check out his article. as we show you that, a back to the phones in detroit, michigan. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i hope i have time to express my observations without getting caught off. -- cut off. it's one thing i have observed is that arabs are reaching out to the illusion in america thinking that we have democracy here. but the economy is finally up to the top 1% and democracy is no longer existed -- is no longer existing. they have to much money to an end they want to control and

become power-hungry. the arabs are looking for was -- for what they think we have over here and we do not. we have the illusion of free speech, but it is a whole bunch of magazines and newspapers that would likely have a choice, but they are all owned by the same people. it is just an illusion. host: within the use movement that seems to be moving throughout the middle east, do you get the feeling that the young people have an understanding of what they are asking for in terms of freedom and the right to govern themselves that guest: yes, these are quite sophisticated young people. many of these young people are western-educated .... the young man who has become the face for the movement in egypt has been a marketing executive

for goule. these people are plugged into what is -- a marketing executive for google. these people are plugged into what is happening in the world. there is poverty and corruption here, too, but much less than what they are reduced to in their own countries. but they know it exists. when they go through their own constitutions they will not look to the united states as their only example. they will look at other countries around the world. many of them will look to turkey, which is close to them culturally, geographically, and in demographic terms. perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the turkish democracy. it will look to indonesia, which dictator fora many years and now there is a

supportive revolution. they will not just look to a single american template. they have a wide range of choices. and also, closer to them in terms of culture and socially and religion that they can pick from. host: sandra you are on the washington journal. caller: these young people in these uprisings, todado they remember what happened in iran when they revolted and are they trying to keep that kind of thing from happening, just replacing another dictator with another dictator? guest: i think they're very aware of that. they've learned their lessons from the iranian example. what you see now in tunisia is an example of those lessons

learned. they were not satisfied merely to get rid of their previous dictator, but only yesterday they have gotten rid of the prime minister, a crony of the ben ali government. they have shown they're not just going to replace one autocrat with another. in egypt, even though they have got rid of mubarak, they have continued to have demonstrations in the square by young people who are essentially communicating out with the military, which is an interim government. the're putting pressure on government -- on the military to make sure that they cannot get any ideas. they do not want the military to just take over for melbar. the -- for mubarak. to maketrying very hard sure that what happened in iran

does not happen. host: run your on the line -- ron, you are on the line. caller: you have mentioned that the uprising in the release is due to the governments there, you know, a lot of corruption and the wealth being concentrated and a small amount of people at the top and high unemployment with the use. -- youth. and the government aid going to the military instead of the people. what you have said it sounds an awful lot like the united states. we have the banks and wall street and government corruption going on, wealth is at the top 2% or 3%. we have unemployment within the use that is very, very high. -- within the youth that is very, very high.

and the military gets a lot of aid from the government. should we be protesting also? guest: we have a way here to kick the bums are when you are not happy with them. -- kick the bums out when you are not happy with them. in the united states you have the opportunity to call up c- span and express your opinion as freely as you just did. in the arab world that opportunity has really existed. in the u.s., people will feel frustration and anger have many outlets for that, many opportunities to act without violence and try to get change. in the arab world, it took young people rising up after 30 years against the dictator at the risk of their own lives in order to bring change.

it will be a while before they begin to get everything they want. but right now, the thing they are happiest with, the thing that they have achieved that is quite remarkable and historic is that they have given themselves an opportunity. host: it seems that anger at israel and the u.s. has been fairly muted in the last two months with regards to these uprisings. is this a situation that we should continue to see happening, or as the situations in these arid countries start to settle down and the new move in thatn's there will be tension between them and their israeli neighbors bucksport -- israeli neighbors? guest: that is certainly possible and plausible. one of the great myths about the arab world has been that israel and palestine, that one issue is

at the top. people may be starving, but their hatred for israel is so great that they will throw themselves against the israeli government. what we have learned in the past two months is that is completely and utterly untrue. people want the same things that we do every where around the world and they want the same experience and desire that we do. in all of the arab world, people are sympathetic toward the palestinians. people obviously disagree with israel, and sometimes quite violently so. and they are not going to be automatically -- just as mubarak was, they are not going to support everything israel does. god forbid, if there is renewed violence in gaza, if israel were to launch another attack on hamas in gaza, that would not go

down well in the arab world. and israel can no longer count on egypt to reflexively follow their lead in all of these things. for israel and for the u.s., this presents new challenges. this means they will have to deal with new representative government and come to relationships based on something more than just one man or one general's ability to will his country. it is not going to be easy. it is going to be difficult and diplomats in that part of the world will have their work cut out for them. but it is a natural process. if israel can create a relationship with egypt, then that has a greater chance at in the long term of actually succeeding done is real working with kasim and barriga. -- with hosni mubarak.

host: next call on the line with bobby ghosh. caller: i was in the marine corps in 1953 and i pulled six months and went on liberty in a lot of these ports that are pregnant -- uprising against their dictators now. my personal experience with the people in these ports, have seen policemen kicked them like dogs in the street. i have seen them actually whip and get drug away. i do not know what happened to them. my question is, what took them so damn long to keep these people out? host: we're going to leave it there. we are running out of time.

guest: i think it needed a new generation to arrive and that generation needed to come of age and organize. but the behavior that you are describing, policeman treating ordinary citizens with contempt and brutality, that situation has continued in many of these countries almost to this day and finally, people snapped. a think you will appreciate this more than most americans, that if this behavior has continued 2010 ore 1950's into 2011, then there has to be a change. and do not think it will tolerate that from their policeman any more. host: in a story in the "usa today" -- if it breaks out into all-out

fighting house-to-house, street to street, what kind of response do you think we will see from the united states? guest: by the way, i think the chance of civil war is quite real. in some ways, that has already begun. but if it gets much bloodier than it has already, then the international community will have to respond. the u.s. has already shown that in this one instance it is going to let the year -- the europeans take the major role. that makes more sense. the libyan society has stronger ties to italy, which used to be the colonial power there, to france, which is just across the maturity in see. -- the mediterranean sea. host: arrest in discussion of establishing a no-fly zone. guest: i think that is crucial and urgent. taking away the ability to strike a tone people with the jets is important.

-- to strike its own people with jets is important. the united nations does not like to impose a no-fly zone. and people forget that the no- fly zone that was imposed over iraq after the kuwait war was not done by the united nations. it was done by the united states. host: our next call comes from arlington, va. hello, arlington? caller: yes, sir? host: your question for bobby ghosh. caller: your comments about egypt are very nice, but what about africa and other countries in there? it is no different than normal more gaddafi -- himal marra @ -- moammar gaddafi.

guest: there has been more democracy in africa recently then there has been in the arab world. in places like tunisia and egypt you hear people saying if one can have democracy, then why can't we? in some ways, africa is setting the example for the world. but there are many african countries that continue to be ruled by a desperate and tyrants. -- by dsepots and tyrants. we see some of that in sudan. is in the cusp of the arab world and the african world. but even in sudan, people are

rising against president bush -- president bashir. host: bobby ghosh is the author stand.dafi's last and thank you for being on the program. guest: thanks for having me. host: we will take a short break and when we come back we will have a discussion on children's hospitals. but first, this update. >> commerce department numbers just released show consumer spending increasing 2% in january. that is the smallest gain in june. consumers get the biggest jump in incomes in nearly two years. the small spending gain porsche's total spending of just over 7% from the recession's low point -- pushes the total spending up just over 7% from the recession's low point in

1998. the economy is predicted to grow just over 3% this year, up from november's production of just point -- of just 2.6%. concerns remain, however, about government deficits and debt, excessive unemployment, and rising and in -- rising commodity prices. com -- congress returns today from its recess. when it needs, but members will consider changes to the patent system. patent law has not changed much since 1952. supporters want to bring the patent system in line with the 21st century technology of biogenetics and artificial intelligence. senator orrin hatch says it is an important step toward maintaining a global competitive edge. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. on c- span2 television.

those are some of latest headlines. >> and why you's clay sharky studies the effect of the internet on society and where the future may take us. >> not the moment where a shiny new tool shows up in the hands of a 15 year-old that changes the world. it is when your mom takes for granted that she can make a video and uploaded to youtube. >> denied on "the communicator's" on c-span2. mit american history professor pauline maier has written several books. join our three-hour conversation with her, taking your phone calls, e-mails, and tweeds sunday at noon eastern on c- span2. watch in-depth programs at

booktv.org. host: john local -- john lauck is here to talk to us about children's hospitals and the funding, or lack thereof, that will be coming to those hospitals in the upcoming budgets. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: in particular is your children's medical graduate program. tell us what that is. and why is it so vital to the treatment of children's hospitals? guest: the graduate medical education program was put into effect in 1999 and was geared at training our pediatric specialists and journalists here in the usa

that time there was roughly about a 19% decline in these pediatric specialties. in these children's hospitals, which represents about 1% of total hospitals in america, these medical students are trained under this funding to become some of our pediatric specialists today. since the year 2000, there has been about a 35% increase because of the program in the specialties. even today we have a shortfall. we still do not have enough pediatric specialists and all of the pediatric generalist's that we need, and that is a concern for us because we are in the business of making sure that our kids have great health care. host: would you say to people that say, if it only affects 1% of all of the hospitals, will there be other places where doctors who are training in

pediatric specialties and children who need those specialists, there will be other places they can go? guest: not really, because these 60 children's hospitals train about half of all of our pediatric specialists. they are some of the key training hospitals of their training our pediatric specialists today. host: is there any funding for the children's hospital graduate medical education in the current continuing resolution that is being discussed in the 2012 budget that the president set up last week? guest: no, not specifically for his graduate education program. of course, having this shortfall will create a problem for our hospitals, will -- to do some of the training that they do today will have to shift from equipment and uninsured care and child care programs that we are

committed to funding. these are the things that make a difference for children's health care in america. host: according to the office of management and budget in the president's fiscal year 2012 budget for children's hospital, it eliminates funding for the hospital's graduate medical education programs and programs that were reauthorize in 2006 for five years. that has been cut down to $330 million. how much of a cut is that? where did it start? guest: it started originally a little under that, but today's requirements -- i mean, this program trades above 5600 of these specialists per year. -- trains about 5600 of these specialists per year. and as this incentive goes down, it is a disincentive for medical students looking for a specialty because the funding will not be there to go into pediatrics, but

potentially some other form of health care specialty, whether it is a cardiologists or whatever. that means our kids will get less care. host: we are talking about childrens' hospitals and federal funding for the training of pediatric specialists with john lauck, president and ceo of the children's miracle network hospitals. if you like to get involved in the conversation, give us a call. the numbers are on the screen. also, we will be taking messages on twitter and e-mails as well. in the washington post this morning, they talk about the governor's association, which is in town this weekend. the headline is, the governor seeks to adapt medicaid. have your word any -- heard any

changes in funding that will not be coming in through the previous funding that came in through the hospital graduate medical education program? hosguest: medicaid really does t cover any of this graduate training. that is what is the key to us. it concerns us, the fact that some of the key programs that the hospitals are trying to fund this year and through the next couple of years, particularly with increasing needs. one thing people may not be aware of is the increase in the number of underweight babies that are born. if you talk to the neonatal care physicians they do not understand exactly why, but we have a dramatic increase in the number of premature babies that are born. 10 years ago, 90% of these children died.

today, most of them are being saved because of an investment in this education act that has helped train these physicians. we have more neonatal specialists. we have also been able to raise a lot of funds that have been successful in paying for the equipment and programs that help make the difference between life or death for some of these babies. host: tell me more about the equipment and the training that you are talking about. that they get at these facilities at that they would not get at other facilities. guest: for example, at a nicu and, or in the don't -- neonatal intensive care unit, they get a bed that cost thousands of dollars that enables them to be put on heart and lung support while they're waiting for surgery.

one thing we pride ourselves on at the juror -- children's miracle network hospitals is to raise the funds to pay for this type of equipment. we work through sponsors, like ihop tomorrow. you can help raise money if you read their tomorrow. -- eat there tomorrow. but there is a shift in training about how to train doctors. do you pay for the doctors or the equipment. it is kind of a chicken or egg situation and our answer is that you need to do both. host: we are discussing the world of children's hospitals and their importance in the health care system. massachusetts, on the line for democrats, maureen. caller: are we on the air?

host: yes, we are. please turn down your television so you will not get the feedback, all right? caller: yeah. i am kind of concerned about health care because i was watching a program give a day where they are talking about rationing to older people and people that are near my age, 59 to 60. i felt that the obama health care is working for some people in massachusetts, but not everybody. thank you. guest: i hear you concerned, obviously, with how these can -- these cuts would affect health care for older americans. i think what is important is that what we're talking about today is that the cuts that are being proposed for the chgme are

not coming out of -- the desire to cut this program will not come out of money that will then be appropriated to adult health care. it is strictly to balance the budget. it does not affect the dole health care, but really, the health care for our children. -- it does not affect adults but really, the, health care for children. and we have got to take care of them. host: next call from kentucky on the line for republicans. caller: are the privately-owned children's hospitals? guest: if the question is whether it will affect privately owned hospitals, certainly, in the fact that privately-owned children's hospitals also benefit from these doctors who are also coming out from medical

training who will receive, or not receive, funding for their special training. it is about three to eight years after medical school that a specialist need to complete a residency program and for their education to become a specialist. pediatric cardiologists, endocrinologist, neonatal care. attritions -- neonatal care pediatricians will be affected. but only in private hospitals, but public hospitals as well. host: section 5503 of the affordable care act provides for reductions in the direction gme and the indirect caps for certain hospitals.

these cuts have already started taking place. are their doctors that are in residency programs now that are starting to look for places that may be getting what money is left over to try to move around and continue their residencies? guest: correct, or they're looking at another specialty. and if they cannot get the training they need to become a pediatric specialists, they may need to become an adult health care specialist. host: how many doctors with these kinds of specialties do you figure you will you -- you will lose over the next couple of years if the this program is not funded? guest: it is difficult to quantify the number, but how

much can be made up from the valuable funding that is out there? it is going to have to come if we're going to continue to train doctors. it is going to have to come from covering the uninsured. last year, we provided a little over $230 million in funding for 170 of our local children's hospitals. all of that money stayed local. it went to those hospitals and a lot of that when to pay for uninsured care. as this shift over to may be having to pay for some training, it means unless funds available for covering the uninsured. host: minnesota, you are on the line. caller: thank you, for c-span. i am in -- i am from puerto

rico. my question is, how is puerto rico fairing in this graduate training? we have one of the demographic numbers in the country and i wonder if these things are taken into consideration. guest: i think the question is, are we taking into consideration the ethnic opportunities? and in this specific case, board of regents -- puerto ricans for raising funds. as we see an increase in the hispanic population, that is one of our target areas, raising funds for the benefit of the hispanic community. we actually have a hispanic radio fund.

we have about 300 radio phones per year that can raise a considerable amount of money. they can raise anywhere from $100,000 of two $1 million. we actually have radio funds in these hispanic communities to benefit those hospitals the serve those populations. a very important demographic for us and part of our future here in america. host: from a daily news on-line publication for health care executives, they write that eliminating the program would narrow the pediatric workforce pipeline at a time when children's timely access to care is already impaired. according to the national association of children's hospitals, the chgme program helps train 1600 residents per year. how does the obama

administration justifies cutting out funding for a program that seems so important, especially for young children? >guest: obviously, the pressure to balance the budget. we are not a political organization, so it is tough to say where you cut the budget. but anything that impact the well-being of our children, this is a life-and-death matter. i would suggest that we are to start first with our future, which are our children, and that which benefits them. we have to make sure that the health care for them is absolutely the best we can give them. one of the concerns with this bill today, even with the chgma in effect, we are able to train these roughly, 1600 physicians

per year. if you're a parent with a child in some of these specialities, it can take up to three months before you can get the care you need. even today there is still a deficit. there is a deficit in terms of the number of doctors and in terms of the health care we would like to give the children. that is why we are so involved in raising these funds to give our children the best care possible. host: next up in california, cynthia on the line for democrats. caller: i am so glad to be on the call today and i am so glad to hear what is being done for the children in the country. but i was more impressed with a statement that you made, sir, about the fact that the children are the future in this country. what i want to ask you, how do you feel about the fact that the new congress just voted to cut

wic, the women, infants and children program in this country, and how important is that for the survivability for low-income parents, whose mothers i know personally and whose children benefit from the program? guest: thank you for your question. again, we do not comment on any programs that are not involved other than our child health care. while that is an important issue and something for congress to address, to the degree that it has any impact on health care is where we get involved. it is important that we look at, first, the life and death issues with the children and their families.

something important obviously for congress to consider and obviously a very difficult issue that they are wrestling with as they try to balance the budget. host: besides the pancakes at ihop, tell us some of the other things that the children's miracle network hospitals are involved in to raise money or make people aware of of this situation and get more money into the pipeline so that we can contribute -- continue training sapediatric specialist. guest: we are working with corporate sponsors, and our corporations have a community obligation. they have -- they need to give back to the community. i hop will have a pancake day tomorrow, but we also work with target, marriot and other organizations.

you have probably seen this paper: before. we just updated our logo, but you can go into a wal-mart or cosco or any of our 90 different partners and donate $1 and the time. we raised over $111 million last year, most of its $1 at a time with the paper balloons. it does not require much of the customers and it gives our corporate partners a tremendous opportunity to give back to the community. all of these funds as a locally and go 100% to the hospital where they are collected. host: next up, the texas. caller: my daughter is a pediatrician here in texas and one of the concerns that she has is the increasing service required of her on children that are born from illegal aliens.

in her view, when she has to provide this service should does not get reimbursed for it and she sees it as an increasing area with in her field and there is concern about what will happen in the future when pediatrician's begin to basically back out of the profession. i will take your answer on the air. thank you. guest: this is one of the areas that we are concerned in. i will not comment on the politics of it, but i will comment on the great need of america's hospitals to cover uninsured health care. a big portion of the funds that we raised go to pay for an insured health care. 170 local hospitals, will the one thing they like about what we do is that the funds are under strict -- unrestricted. they can use these dollars for whenever they see fit. if the greatest need is

uninsured health care, they can put it there. if the grid is needed equipment, they can put it there. if it is training, they can put it to training. a good portion of what we raise goes to covering the peace. host: i know you say you are not a political organization, but we find ourselves now in the budget season where various committee -- various cabinet secretaries, including secretary sebelius of dhhs, coming to the hill. is there any lobbying or pressure that an organization like yours is putting on.com was or on senators to put this back in the budget -- on congress or on senators to put this back in the budget? guest: we are not a lobbying

group, so we do not do that. but there is the national association of children's hospitals that is a lobby group and is providing perspective on the hill and the impact that some of these cuts would have on our children's hospitals. children's hospitals are fairly new. it has only been in the last several decades. for many years we treated them as little adults. the fascinating thing that you learn when you tore our children's hospitals -- when you to work our children's hospitals it is a radically different health care. host: nyc, new york, on our line , go ahead.dencts turn down your television, ok? caller: thank you for having me on.

my cousin is a pediatrician in india and she is now and in -- an anesthesiologist. i cannot believe how funding could get cut in a country where health care should be free for everyone. you go to places like europe or canada and you have health care for free. my cousin serves millions and millions of people. i am pretty puzzled why the budget would be cut at all. guest: it is obvious the puzzling since it impacts our future and our children. one of the things i find is almost anybody i come in contact with within the inner circle,

either their own children or their relatives or their friends, there is a child that is impacted by the need for a children's hospital. until we have free health care in america, it is important that we fulfill the deficit that is out there, and the need. in america we have a rich tradition of giving, which i am very proud to be a part of. i'm very proud to be a part of an organization that capitalizes on the opportunities to support the local children's hospitals. in a perfect world of kupka -- of health care, if such a world exists, we have an opportunity to give to everybody. i would urge everyone who is listening to me to consider giving to your local children's hospital. help train your local doctors and specialists that are needed to treat our children. is the children's hospital graduate medical and -- host: is the children's hospital grudge

toward medical education program unique to the united states, or will we lose this program to similar types of programs overseas? guest: i'm not sure if it is unique to the u.s., but there's no question that we will lose some of these specialists, wherever they go. there are medical students going into other specialties. we certainly could lose these specialties to overseas hospitals that would provide the training or the grants or the funding and scholarships to be able to do that. beach, fla., thomas on the democrats line. host: i have a comment -- caller: i have a comment to you, the host. i live in florida. there are a lot of people from canada to come down here. everytime i get a chance i talk to them. i have them, how does your health care work? does it work good for you?

and they all say it works great. i have asked about 20 people and they have all pretty much given me the same answer. my suggestion to you is, why don't you randomly pick out some people from canada and have them on your show and have them tell the american people the real truth? as long as we have a health care system that is for profit, we are not going to have a real health care system for the people. host: we will take that under consideration, but before i let you go, let me ask you this. when you are talking to those people from canada, you get into discussions about health care for children? caller: yeah, in fact, i stopped to get gas last week. that is how i knew the guy was from canada because of his tag on his car. we were talking and he had about

45 kids in the car with him and i asked -- four or five kids in the car with him and i asked him, does it work could for everyone? and he said, yes. he said, you are going to be taking care of. guest: i have a comment. and thank you for the question. i just returned a few weeks ago from canada. i visited several of our network hospitals up there. even with the canadian health care system, where it would appear that much, if not all of that is covered, we still raise funds for them because there is still a need. even with canadian health care, there is still a need to provide programs that the hospitals do not receive any funding for from the government. on a per hospital basis, we raise about the same amount, or perhaps a little bit more than we do here in the u.s. for

those hospitals to conduct the health care they need. even though you may argue that they have a more robust system, there is still a need for charity. host: our next call comes from the bronx, new york, on the line for republicans. caller: i'm wondering what the effects of rising prices due to obama care is going to have on children's hospitals. guest: i'm not sure what effect it will have on rising prices, but there has been pressure for many years on the rising prices in a children's hospital. and that is why the need for giving is greater than ever, and it will continue to be that way. we have a growing population of acute patients, as i said before, and the growing need for more specialists. the good news is that in a -- in

an increasing number of but wels, it is theire, need more funds to support them. host: california, you are on the line with the "washington journal." caller: i applaud the guest. he is doing what he should be doing, protecting his piece of the pie, and he is working for the children of america. i think he provide his own answer. is the way to pay for these programs, the money he is giving to the uninsured, he could use it for training. i thought that was what the new program with obama care did was to cover of all children. would that not give you the money for training? guest: it does not provide all the training that is necessary,

nor does it cover all of the health care gaps. even today with the chgme program, which provides a little over $300 million in funding, and with the charitable grant that we get, a little over $240 million to several of these hospitals, and with these programs locally, the hospitals themselves, they're still a deficit. -- there is still a deficit. trying to put the burden on the back of anyone saying -- of any one thing is not realistic. host: john lauck is the president and ceo of the children's miracle network hospitals. he has also been the president and chief marketing officer for arby's. and he has held senior marketing roles at pepsi co, a pizza hut

and foot locker. next call from massachusetts. caller: when the republicans say they want less government is because they want to take away all of the regulations and make sure that nobody is stealing from the government. daud choosing that every time they are asking for fewer regulations -- and don't you think that every time they are asking for fewer regulations they are stealing from the pocket of the taxpayer? when you look at other countries, the top 3% have control of most of the money and the bottom half is sitting here wondering what is going to happen to them. there is a problem here in this country where these bankers can make $100 million per year by ripping people off and then they call these products good products that are supposed to create wealth. only for the top 3%. i think there is a problem here.

if there are not any regulations, you will not know who the cook is. guest: interesting thought and challenge, but i think what it comes back down to, again, is -- where we are putting our energy is dealing with the side of the problem that all of us can participate in, that we can do something about. sometimes the politics of health care are frustrating. it may not feel like we have control over the outcome, but one thing we do have control over is the ability to get involved. we can donate time and money to local children's hospitals. last friday i spent a couple of hours in a local children's hospital manning phones for the radio fund and taking donations. you can go donate your time and

get involved in many volunteer programs at our hospitals. prounced rather than some of the things we may not be able to do much about or have control over, jump in. do something where you have the ability to provide some support. make a difference. host: in this morning's "time", paul krugman writes "leaving children behind." bee