republican senator tom coburn of oklahoma will talk about his efforts to reduce the federal deficit. we will continue our conversation on federal spending and the nation's debt with philadelphia congressman chaka fataah. congressional reporter from political is our guest after that. >> suddenly, this dormant >> suddenly this dormant sell launched an attack. host: live coverage of colonel gaddafi speaking this morning. we want to bring you some of this speech. it is at a political anniversary event in the capital near tripoli. we will let you know what the headlines are coming out of this speech. in libya some of the rebels are calling for foreign intervention. that is the headline in "the

washington post" this morning. the military is warning about a no-fly zone requiring international authorization. in no-fly zone is under active consideration. defense secretary gates is preparing a lot of options and contingencies for president obama. good morning, everyone. we will begin this morning with the situation in libya. take a listen to what secretary gates had to say about that option yesterday during a news conference. >> all of the options beyond humanitarian assistance and evacuation are complex. given the consequences, they derive from the fact that they are complex. for example, if we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for afghanistan?

for the persian gulf? what other allies are prepared to work with us in some of these things? host: military intervention in libya is the question this morning. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. start dialing now, we want to know what you have to say about this. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or eight twitter message, twitter.com/c- spanwj. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff told reporters that they had no confirmed reports that will mark khaddafi -- that khaddafi had used airstrikes.

host: so, that is the situation according to "the washington post" this morning. there has been no call for an intervention yet. on their front page they have this headline, "some are calling for foreign intervention." host: "the new york times" says

this --

host: we want to know your thoughts on this this morning. jake, democratic line, what do you think? caller: the u.s. should not interfere in the affairs of other countries without their expression. host: bobby, your thoughts? caller: absolutely not.

we have had our own brave men and women killed as soldiers and contractors. i do not understand what is up with this obama. he wants his own historical war that he can win. we saw the same thing with bush. we are not the world's policeman. i do not know what it will take to learn this. complete, total rock bottom. why not bring out these unmanned aerial vehicles? host: giving you a feel for what is happening on the ground this morning, here is the associated press saying --

host: here is the front page of "the guardian" this morning. it says that britain backtracked over its military stance regarding libya last night. host: also, "the financial times" this morning, "alarm over libya."

coastal los angeles, victor, a democrat, what do you think? caller: in the african continent we have different priorities. why not use these countries in africa? we have pushed most of the presidents of the african continent. it would be enough to reduce these activities.

no. 2, if nato had chosen one african nation, we would be going into that african nation. but nato has never seen africa as something that could come off as one of the world leaders. that we would have to police africa in general. instead of the u.s. going in there to bring about an economic objective. host: victor, where are you from, originally? caller: nigeria. but i have been in this country

for 20 years. i used to be a student revel in nigeria. i organized a national nationwide riots. host: what is going through your head as you watch this situation in libya? caller: muammar gaddafi is a dictator. this deal to get him out of sight should have happened a long time ago. he has committed many atrocities. we all know. as the national president of the nigerian student union in 1990, i held a riot against tampa. defectors in nigeria never saw him as being a threat.

we can use a lot of countries in africa to get through. host: are you following what the african union has been saying? what do you make of that? yesterday i heard secretary clinton on monday, when she was in geneva. she called on the african union to make more of a statement on that. why do you think that is? what do you make of what they have said so far? caller: that is a good direction but in the wrong order. muammar gaddafi is not the president. so, you can see that he is going to buy some of these presidents. they will not be able to do anything against him. nigeria and south africa can bring him down. what they need to do is

censured. just like in camps on the ivory coast. this is a continent that is known in poverty. host: before you go, you organized the gathering peplum -- a gathering? i want to leave your thoughts -- how did you do that back then? what are your thoughts on the organization going on today in the middle east using the internet and social media? caller: i wish that the internet was there, it would have been easier for me. telephones were for rich people than. what is happening right now, we

have a lot of resources to organize this. muammar gaddafi, the best people to use are the students. he has not been known to torture students, but he has been known to torture other people. host: you know that he is speaking right now. we showed you a bit at the top of the program. he started before 7:00 a.m. eastern time and he continues to talk in libya. we will let you know what the headlines are coming out of that. we will continue to talk to everyone about military intervention in libya this morning. first, we want to talk about what is happening on the domestic front. david drucker is joining us. yesterday the house was able to

pass a two week resolution to keep the government funded past the deadline of this friday. break it down. caller: it was pretty overwhelming. most republicans in the house voted for it, including most of the freshman. there were also possibly a hundred democrats that joined the republicans. even though there were cuts that the president said that he approved of, party unity is important and constant, particularly in the minority when it will not help the majority. host: when you look at the overall votes, a good chunk of democrats wound up voting for this continuing resolution.

caller: correct. it was a tactical move for hacks -- house republican leaders to come up with a plan that included cuts that democrats were supportive of. host: steny hoyer voted for the resolution. nancy pelosi voted against it. caller: i would not make too much of it other than steny hoyer tends to be more center- left and left left -- than left- left. the minority leader probably does not approve of most of the cuts in general. even if it is just a short-term, quick fix. steny hoyer may have been providing some cover as well.

they are not exactly on their own, as one of their leaders did it with them. i do not think that we will see this kind of split too often. host: more votes to come. this one goes to the senate, when will they be voting? caller: 11:00 on wednesday, unless something has changed. already harry reid, mitch mcconnell, they expected the bill to pass. the key now is going to be -- can negotiate cuts for a spending bill that gets us to the end of the year and makes everyone happy? or are we going to see a v.p.

bumping up against the deadline with someone throwing out another bill? the wild card in all of that is raising the debt limit. we will bump into that deadline. that is going to require heavy lifting. host: there has also been talk of possibly a monthlong extension or six weeks. where does that stand? new caller: right now i do not know where that stands. democrats on the hill would like to go that route. i think that republicans would not, at least initially. but i think if they past small bills where they take out a piece of legislation that gets them more in spending cuts towards the $61 billion that they passed on the 19th, i think

it would be willing to go that route. if you have a pro rated version of house resolution one in small chunks, republicans would do that. getting it done and moving on to fiscal year 2012. host: thank you very much for joining us this morning. for more of his reporting, go to rollcall.com two -- .com. two members of congress will be joining us this morning. tom coburn is joining us this morning, and later this morning we will have chaka fattah.

back to military intervention in libya, one caller had mentioned china. "the new york times" reported this -- host: yesterday we also covered talkinggeneral maddis, about the possibility of a no- fly zone. here is what he has to say. >> it would be challenging. you would have to remove air defense capabilities. there are no illusions that this would be a military operation. it would not simply be telling

people not to fly airplanes. >> this declaration would have a significant deterring effect upon their desire to fly. i think that we know that to be the case. >> yes, sir. host: jeffrey, florida, what do you think? caller: is a good idea to show that we have a fleet out there still. host: explained that a little bit. caller: the only thing i am worried about is secretary clinton and obama, sending our money overseas, i am worried about causing another bankroll for libya in the same region. i think that it is good that we show a presence there and show that we are there to help. but how far is this going to go?

how far will it take us away from our intended mission? the theory of a first strike, taking out the implementation that would hurt us. host: are you in the military? caller: i was. former marine. host: what do you think about this? host: what do you make of that positioning? what do the marines do that left caller: basically but the country's need me to do -- do?

caller: basically what the country needs them to do. show the world that we care. we are a christian nation. we will always be there to accept the fight, help others by an any capacity necessary. host: kerner, okla., your thoughts? caller: america should not be involved in this. the second-largest city there, everyone is talking about a lot of atrocities. cnn, cbs, they are both in their. the media does not answer questions, you know?

it is just another lie to spend a lot of money. good luck on the intervention. host: here is but " finance -- "financial times" this morning.

host: we covered that hearing yesterday. she was there to talk about the budget for the state department in 2012. if you are interested in the whole fishing, go to our web site. c-span.org, in the upper right- hand corner we have a video library. chicago, theodore, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: we should only get involved for humanitarian purposes. the problem is that we just got out of two wars. some people forget that ronald reagan bombed muammar gaddafi back in 2008. who is going to pay for this? that is my only question. if we get involved, who is going to foot the bill? we have a recession. we need to be focused on america at this particular moment.

if those people want freedom, they should have the right to fight for freedom the way that we did when we first form of our country. we are still fighting today. how can we get involved in someone else's problems bell host: courtesy of aljazeera this morning we are showing you colonel muammar gaddafi must third speech. we will let you know what we are hearing from the associated press and other wires. butler, tennessee. caller: i have two comments. the first is that i am a republican and i am old enough to be your father. in 1994 i backed up for the first time of my life -- in my life from the republican party because i do not understand them. the point taken is that in

terms of the military, i was in the bullet -- the bay of pigs, the cuban blockade, and vietnam. i am telling you that war is pitiful. we have no business in that. i would like to see veterans stand up and be against bork. they make me sick because they want it. the old veterans know that war is no good. thank you. host: more out of libya from "the financial times" this morning with this headline -- host: s.i., new york. go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. it is nice to be on this station. i have visited liberia.

i am resentful of the united states but around the world. for the people of libya are no longer interested in having muammar gaddafi? let them. playing out strategies for financial aid, they need to plan and do it well. host: let me read this from ""the washington post" this morning.

caller: the problem is, do you know what happens when you drop bombs them you can hardly find a drinking water. this is an ugly sight to behold. what the united states should do is have an army and if they want to leave, let them leave. africans always run to the europeans and americans for help. i am tired of it. let them handle it.

host: on your comments before oblivion's -- on your comments about libyans evacuating, this story says that to me it is overwhelmed. host: also from that speech, courtesy of al-jazeera, we have been showing you a little bit of it. this is the associated press. muammar gaddafi says that he vows to fight to the last man

and woman to defend his country. spartanburg, south carolina. good morning. caller: i agree with most of the callers who asked who made america the policeman of the world. a nation that is constantly involved in war, it is becoming sickening. we asked the question, did president obama act quickly enough? the fact is that most of the uprisings that we have seen, in the past america has been implicit with the big players on the behalf of corporations. right here in wisconsin we are seeing some of the same things. some of this is coming to our own shores. the people of our own nation

fighting against the same corporate interests that our government has propped up. there have been uprisings in china that have been so repressive that they have been cut down. we are depending on china to help them enforce the no-fly zone and china is just as abusive to their people as muammar gaddafi. no one is saying anything about that. in fact, we are counting on them and they are perhaps the most repressive nations in the whole universe. no one says anything, but we want to go. the great america, who manufactures nothing but the military industrial complex, thinking that we have to spend -- send our military over there.

going on 10 years, thinking we are the great policeman of the world. host: more of our coverage here on c-span, yesterday ben bernanke was on the senate side. he was asked about the continuing resolution that house republicans passed a couple of weeks ago that included $60 billion in spending cuts. you probably saw the back-and- forth between economists over the last couple of days with it -- with republicans coming out on the program and their analysis of that continuing resolution. ben bernanke was asked about it yesterday in here is what he had to say. >> i do not have that number, but it would be less than $700,000. host: he was also asked about the oil situation.

here is the line from "the washington post." host: if you would like to watch all of that, go to our website, c-span.org, for more. joe, republican line, go ahead. caller: i do not believe that we should even be involved in this. if the libyans or the want freedom, they should do it like we did hundreds of years ago. they should fight for it themselves. we should probably help with humanitarian aid, but we should not get involved in weapons or air strikes. no matter how precise the military is, if we go in to

destroy aircraft batteries we will kill innocent civilians. we are going to enforce the no- fly zone. we have to do a preemptive strike to take out the combat systems. this would just cause a gigantic problem. why should we have to be the police of the world? host: here is an e-mail from steven, who writes -- we should in no way let nato handle this. the government needs to stop trying to police the world and our national debt is our biggest threat right now. from the associated press, from england, david cameron has launched an operation airlift for egyptian refugees stranded on the border of libya. good morning. caller: the united states should

not get involved except on a humanitarian basis. people should not forget that we had this before 1979 by libya. linked with the arab defeat in 1968, this was a tribal war. they should sort themselves out. the united states should not get involved except on a humanitarian basis. host: "usa today" reporting this morning that new gingrich is to explore a 2012 presidential run. host: also this morning, here is

"the washington post" style section saying that chris dodd is now the new head of the motion picture association of america. it was officially announced yesterday. baltimore, jennifer, republican line. go ahead. caller: i have an interesting point of view. i was a former interview -- for peace activist in 1991. -- former peace activist in 1991. i have changed my view on terrorism. it will not stop until we take action. we have the perfect advantage to end this war on terrorism. we need to do it now. we cannot wait around or dillydally. the need to act.

it is so strange in that it is coming from a peace activist, but our country is in danger. we have been constantly attacked by terrorists. how many times have we had to disarm bombs in this country? after reading the book of an exiled author from iran, he is even saying -- bring in air strikes and naval forces. the beast that is a radical islam will continue to terrorize americans. we will constantly have to fight this. host: just a reminder to you and others, turn your television down when i say that you are on air, it helps with the feedback situation. fairfax, your next. caller: the comments on america,

especially, i do not have a problem with africans, but when dealing with them there has to be some public policy coming from the middle east. africa is culturally divided. even issues of muammar gaddafi getting africans from other countries, i grew up in sierra leone. there was a military government in charge that we for trying to get out of power. -- that we were trying to get out of power. when you see the same people that look like you going to a culture, that helps.

america, europeans, asians, you can come up with an organization in the middle east, but to have anything else on the continent, they will not help. host: on the wisconsin budget battle here is "usa today." "schools take a hit as protesting employees around the capital." host: we have been following that situation in wisconsin. for coverage, go to our website, c-span.org. matthew, ill., independent, wilmington? forethoughts? matthew? matthew? matthew?

caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i have been following this closely in the newspaper, television and media. the libyan country holds 2% of the world's oil supply and the record of that goes to europe. i do not see why they are a threat to. i think that the people can take care of it themselves. unfortunately, people die in revolutions. but i do not feel that we should be involved in that. we are already extended so deeply in other areas financially, we should not be leaving this debt for our children and grandchildren.

host: if you are interested in what europe is saying, i guess i on this program the european ambassador said on this show that what they are planning to do on monday it was a approve sanctions that were more strict than what the european -- and what the united nations had approved last friday. albuquerque, new mexico. john, good morning. caller: these wars, we should not be in the wars that we are in. they do not listen to the american people because of the powers that be. the council on foreign relations and the bankers, that is who wants all of the wars. we need to take back our country and governments from this oligarchy. we have been under a state of emergency since 1950.

there was a short time in the 1970's when they found this out and they made a lot that they had decided every year. there are talking about egypt under a state of emergency? we have been under one for longer than egypt and we need to bring our troops home. we need to take back the government from these monsters. we have a police state here of homeland security. veterans are terrorists to be watched. everyone is the enemy here in the states. host: we will leave it there. we want to let you know about our coverage this morning. on c-span 3 we will be covering live the senate foreign relations committee. hillary clinton will be testifying before that panel.

she was on the hill yesterday talking about the 2012 budget. she talked about the situation in libya and will likely be asked about that again. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span 3. denver, democratic line, you are the last fall call on this. caller: thank you, c-span. the last thing that we need is a no-fly zone. all that that is going to do is destroy what military equipment they have to defend themselves with. those countries over there right now, they do not have anything to defend themselves with. they are already without power. if we keep destroying what they have, someone is going to have to step in.

host: we will return to the domestic front in a moment. coming up next, senator tom coburn. we will talk about the debates over spending cuts. we will be right back. ♪ >> over 1000 students entered this year's studentcam competition this year. c-span will announce the winners wednesday morning, march 9. we will stream all of the studentcam.org.at >> this weekend on both tv, "i

of the hurricane." also, scott brown. look for scheduling information aspect booktv.org. did our schedules through e- mail. signup for our booktv alert. >> there is a new way to get a concise review of the events of the day. washington review on c-span radio. every day be will take you to capitol hill, the white house, and many where the news is happening as we put the day's events into perspective. the stories that matter to you the most. even listen in the washington baltimore area at 90.1 fm, nationwide on satellite 132, or go online apple c-span.org -- at

c-span.org. you can download the program every evening as a pot test. -- podcast. host: let's begin with and the gang of six. you are a part of it. a bipartisan group of six senators working behind the scenes planning on tackling the deficit and the debt. including kent conrad, dick durbin, mark warner, yourself, three democrats and three republicans. this is the headline coming out of yesterday's meeting. a gang of six, mum is the word. why? guest: you cannot negotiate these things in the press.

it is difficult to take people like dick durbin and tom coburn and make hard compromises in public life. anyone against what you are doing is going to be critical. any comment on what we are doing or how we are doing is inappropriate and handicaps the ability to come to something that really helps our country. that is what we are trying to do. we are trying to put forward a process where we can actually get out of a very deep hole that this country is in. most americans do not realize. they realize that we are in trouble and that there is tremendous waste in washington, but they do not realize the impact that is going to hit this country. just a 1% increase in interest rates will cost us $150 billion

per year. right now we are borrowing money at 2% on average. it 1% change, if we went back to historical averages he would add $600 billion to the deficit. the importance of us sending the signal to the international financial community that we can start changing things, it does not have to be austerity and prosperity. how do we generate the economy that fulfills the job needs of americans and enhances revenue? host: what would your reaction be if people call these secret talks? guest: they are a combination of hard negotiations and compromise to get to a point where we can put something out that can be debated. what we decide is not going to be the final thing.

it is what we decide that we can put on the floor of the senate together and have a debate completely with the american people. the question is -- i voted for the deficit commission report. we did get 11, over 60%, which is a magic number in the senate. we have to solve this problem. by and not going to get everything that i want. dick durbin is not going to get everything that he wants. but if we do not work on this, the future is not bright for the country. that is what district for it is important -- that is why this report is important. this report, which your listeners should understand, this is just a look at one-third of the discretionary programs in

the federal government. when i ask for this report, originally, the gao told me that it was too difficult to do. i told him i needed a list of every government program. so, i put it into the blast debt limit extension. everyone is aghast. and this is something we have been talking about for the last five years. and then minutes that were routinely voted down, and now suddenly they are acceptable. all of these programs listed here came out of someone wanting to do the right thing to help someone. poor congressional action, no metrics or valuation on what we are doing. host: yesterday in "the wall street journal," we will show this headline to the viewers.

there are 80 economic development -- programs across four agencies, more than two dozen presidential appointees, 20 agencies operating 56 programs on financial literacy. viewers will likely want to talk to you about this more. back to the gang of six, is that something that you guys are looking at? these duplicating and overlapping federal agencies? guest: we are not that specific. we're looking at programs and the tax code to generate greater economic growth in this country. corporations in this country pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

the vast majority of large american business is outside the country because we have a tax code that says do not create jobs here. how we bring down a tax code to compete in the world and be fair, creating increased in of the growth of capital in america to create jobs, we are trying to look at every aspect of it. we know that if we do not do that, we will not fulfil the needs of the american people. host: there have been reports that you are on two different tracks. can you speak to that? guest: i will let comment on any of that because nothing is decided. we are in a very difficult phase of trying to come to an agreement. how much pain can each side take? how do we put ourselves in a

position where not doing something is worse than doing something that you do not want to do? host: pain on the republican side of the aisle includes what? guest: any kind of tax increase. host: defense spending? guest: i do not think so. our problems with defense spending, i think that everyone, democrats and republicans, want us to defend this country. the problem is we have not had great accounting in defense. there is a tremendous amount of waste. they do not know what they're doing. the effort has been, in the house and the senate, to bring them in line with generally accepted accounting standards. you cannot manage what you cannot measure and the pentagon cannot measure half of the things they're doing. there is at least $50 billion

each year through efficiency that could be taken out of the defense budget. our goal has been trying to get the top leadership to buy into that. when admiral mullen says that the greatest risk to america is its debt, first of all he is right. every republican in history failed over fiscal issues before they failed militarily. what he is also saying is that the pentagon has to get their act together in terms of being able to spend this money wisely and appropriately, so that we get good value. host: one more question about the gang of six. is there a time line for you guys? is there a date to two are working with them -- working with? host: we are just trying to --

guest: we are simply trying to solve the problem. every one of us, it is worth stock -- is worth our losing our jobs if we can solve this problem. host: is that the general consensus? guest: we are willing to do what is necessary to get us back on the growth track of american exceptional is the. this report is not an indictment of any administration. not bush or obama. congress has failed to use the oversight for proper legislative action and measure whether or not they are effective, without allowing federal programs for

obesity. can you imagine? the federal government spending money on financial literacy when we cannot control ourselves? the paradoxes, the obnoxiousness of what we do in light of our own behavior is astounding. host: the report is linked on our web site, c-span.org. there is a summary if you do not want to read the whole thing. guest: every american should read this. it confirms the suspicions of most americans. that we do not really know what we are doing up here because we have not paid attention to detail. when you do not, you are spending money that does not accomplish the goal. there is at least $100 billion that can be saved tomorrow.

we spend $18.4 billion each year in job training. we have 47 programs from nine different agencies, all but three of them overlap. not one of them has a metric on that. were you trained adequately? none of them have that metric. we could streamline that, eliminate bureaucracy, get more flexibility to the states, spent $9 billion with better outcomes. if the american people read through that report, it will let them identify what the problem is. it will also allow them to tell congress that they demand federal oversight over these programs. have a hearing, discuss what the program is doing, the weaknesses, and if they are accomplishing their goals. most are not.

host: the ap is perfect -- reporting that thousands of libyans will die if the u.s. or nato intervened in that country. guest: by the united nations has already voted not to intervene. i am not sure that that is wise. one thing that the world community can do is limit their ability to use their resources against their own citizens. host: you would have no problem with a no-fly zone? guest: i do not, but i do think it would be very difficult to do. we cannot get involved in any other aspect at this time. in terms of humanitarian aspects, here is a leader of a country that has been there for almost 40 years. taking that position through coup, if i remember correctly. now we are going to sit on the

sideline and allow him to merit his own terms? from a humanitarian standpoint, we should limit that if we can without putting ourselves at much risk. host: gloria, republican, indiana, thank you for waiting. caller: it is funny that you are talking about this. i was looking at privatization as a way to reduce the government. .

if a company's losing money, we're still funding them. what i'm looking at, and i'll give you some ideas. what i'm looking at on the postal service is have we looked at fedex or u.p.s.? host: lori, we'll leave it there and get a response from the senator. guest: there's a few problems most americans don't know about the postal service is congress limits what management can do in terms of their negotiations and labor contracts, one. number two is i've been trying to get an amendment that would say that in negotiations with labor, you have to consider the financial health of the postal

service. well, right now the law is such that you cannot consider the financial health in arbitration of the postal service when an arbitrator is arbitrating the contracts. that's absolutely crazy. we have a great new post master general. they have tremendous plans to get it right. but they have to have the ability to control their labor costs, and that's 85%-90 of what they do. and if you can't do that, you can't ever get profitable. so one of the things we have to do is change the law that says the financial condition of the post office ought to have some bearing in negotiations for labor and working rules. host: mark, an independent. go ahead. caller: good morning senator. you mentioned every american should read the report. every american should read the constitution.

1/3 of the government agencies that you have there, probably 95% of them are unconstitutional. and all through the government you have 550 agencies approximately, and most of those are unconstitutional. why don't you just every week, take two or three of those agencies and put them up and show the constitutionality of it and if you can't prove it, get rid of them. >> guest: that's the point i make all the time. as a matter of fact john mccain and i every year send a letter to senators saying we will block bills that you cannot point to the authority in the constitution for which you're doing it. if it's increasing spending without decreasing spending somewhere else. one of the reasons we're in trouble.

and he's dead on with his point is the federal government is trying to do things it was never meant to do. so we have this massive load of bureaucracy. right there is a problem. the size and magnitude is no one person can get their hand on it. we'll get two more reports over the next two years that will give us the rest of us and every year after that the g.l. will give us a report on it every year. it's a massive job. but back to his key point. if it's a legitimate role of the federal government, we should do it. if it's not, we shouldn't. i tried to get through a bill called the enumerative powers act. i have not been successful in doing that. what he would like to see us

do, i would love to do, but i can't get the support to do it. host: are you concerned at all that when you just start cutting across the board. democrats in particular are concerned about the $61 billion . are you concerned saying they are just slashing? guest: but the size of the federal government is twice the size it was a year ago. it's increased 24% in discretionary programs. what the house is doing doesn't even take you anywhere back to where we were two years ago in terms of expenditures. so when they say it's a slash, is 24% in a period of zero inflation, and we're going to cut half of that increase out? that's ridiculous. the claim -- and that's why we're where we are.

we can create social safety nets that are within the frame of the constitution, and we can make sure we're taking care of those that truly need our help. but take a look at the country. once the international financial community loses confidence on whether or not we will be able to repay our debt, our interest rates are going to shoot up like crazy. and the economic growth. right now our debt is costing us a million new jobs a year. that's been confirmed by several economic studies and cost us at least 1% in gdgd. if you could -- in g.d.p. what's going to happen is interest rates are going to rise so fast that there's not going to be a way to get out of it. people say slash and burn.

but it's not. what this report shows, you could eliminate things and nobody would ever know the difference. host: on this issue of debts and interest rates, one said that with consumers weakened by high debt and unemployment, government needs to step in with a large new stimulus effort and secondly, borrowers at risk of foreclosures would help to put consumers back on track. he says this argument over our debt and our deficit is not valid. because if you look, people are more than happy to be giving us money. guest: right now they are, and why is that? because we're still the largest g.d.p. in the world. and we're still the safest country in the world. but when countries start to default, like ireland, like greece. like japan. and they will. they'll have sovereign

defaults. money will rush back in this country. but then it will rush back out. none of the new spending was paid for by reducing. we just put another $1 trillion in stimulus in the economy. we don't need to put any more stimulus in the economy. we need a more efficient government. government doesn't produce anything. we need those dollars to go into productive capacity that will actually grow the economy and grow jobs. caller: good morning. cold up there? guest: yes. caller: the fact is we have a $14 trillion debt. but let me argue why i think that might be a good thing. let's imagine the united states with all the debt, let's say we

have a surplus of money, but the thing with that is i feel the government isn't just going to sit on a pile of cash. if they have a surplus of money, they are just going to grow and take more of our civil liberties. so the fact that we're in debt, it's making government shrink. and i think that's a good thing. host: senator? guest: well, this is going to be a tough way to shrink the government. the real danger is that -- and going back to the gang of six. we have a short window with which we can make decisions and control our destiny. there will be a period of time, if we don't do that, where we won't make decisions. those decisions will be forced upon us by the people that own our debt. the responsible thing is to eliminate the duplication and work in a bipartisan manner to solve the problems in the long

run in a way that protects the safety net but makes the government efficient and effective. i will tell you that i don't think there's one agency in the federal government that's both efficient and effective. our military is effective but highly inefficient. there are none that i can find that are both effective and efficient. host: this viewer wonders if that includes farm subsidies. guest: we have more employees in the department of agriculture. most of them don't work on agriculture. we have programs, dupe -- duplicate programs. farming has become so infiltrated that there's almost as many -- as there are

farmers. half of this is technical in how we get there and how we plan. and the other half is how do you give up something you know is going to hit you politically, but still do the right thing for the country? so i don't know. it depends on each individual that's in the room. host: do you sit -- one viewer asks about the highest-ever i.r.s.'s pie chart shows corporate share of tax revenue at 4%. the pie shows corporate's share of tax revenue at 10%. this is a reduction in one year of 60%. we don't have a spending problem. we have a problem of unabashed greed and a government that sustains and protects it. guest: what you have to do is look at effective corporate tax

rates. i think that's true for the large corporations. but where the jobs are created in this country, the small and medium-sized companies, they are paying much higher tax rates than the larger corporations. that's why we want to take the tax expenditures out. there's $1.3 trillion a year in tax expenditures in the tax code. host: we're talking about for the people who don't know, mortgage interest deductions? guest: well, that's a big one. but charitable contradict -- charitable contributions. i'm talking about those that make them put capital in a certain degree, a certain area so they can capture a tax credit for a tax payment. we're directing for the federal government capital investment. we want the markets to determine where the capital

investment goes, because that's when we'll get the most jobs and that's where the most efficient use of the capital will go. so as you make our corporate tax rates competitive with the rest of the world, what you're going to see, there's no question one of the rebounding in profits is because we've had tremendous productivity gains, in other words, efficiency. what corporations are doing is a whole lot more with less. so that's a pie chart based on what the estimate is. we'll see what it's going to be. but we've got all these ways for them to hide money somewhere or credit. what america needs is a flat tax rate that everybody pays and there's no deductions and everybody knows what they are going to pay and then we won't be sending money in the wrong direction. host: thanks for waiting, fred? caller: good morning. thanks for "washington journal"

and c-span. i'm not trying to stroke your ego. but probably because you're not a lawyer. but let me say this. my concern is that you guys don't try to rebuild the house that burned down in a day or two or a week. that you guys are trying to do so much with cutting the debt that you might cut too much. and the second thing i wanted to talk about was republicans, if you play your cards right, there will be a republican in the white house in 2013, because i'm fed up with these democrats and obama administration. they've done nothing but cost me money. i've been passed over two times for a cost of living adjustment and i just found out i'm getting another tax increase this month. so if you guys play your cards right, there will be a republican in the white house in 2013. host: are you referring to the

social security adjustment? caller: yes. host: senator? guest: right now, i would just say, first of all, i understand what he's saying. we ought to be thinking about, to me, i can't stand the fact that we're already talking presidential politics, because it takes our eye off the ball. our problems are so great. it shouldn't matter whether you're democrat or republican. democrat and republican kids are all going to suffer if we don't solve this. it doesn't matter who you are or your political affiliation, if we don't come together and create opportunity base, we're all -- i used to say on the senate floor when i first got in the senate in 2005 about my children and grandchildren. it's not going to be my children or grandchildren. it's going to be me and you.

we're not just going to harm the next two generations. we're going to undercut ourselves and our antibiotic to have a great retirement or potential for a great retirement. so what needs to happen is we need to get the federal government back under control, which it's not. that report proves it's not. it's not under control. and it's the congress' fault. we've not done the oversight. and that doesn't mean our intentions are not good and everything else. but we've not done the hard work, because it's easy to pass a bill. it's hard to do the oversight to see if it's working. we have set ourselves up for failure. if we don't come together and solve these problems in the near term, i may be more of an alarmist. but i think we could easily see a 15% to 20% decline in g.d.p. 20% unemployment and inflation

in the next three years if we don't solve these problems. >> at the chance of irritating you. here's the headline in "usa today." gingrich to explore for the 2012. what do you think of him? guest: he is undoubtedly the smartest man i've ever met. he is a thinker. he has great vision. the question to me is does he have the capability to lead the country? and having served under him in the house, he is not one i would choose to support in a presidential primary. to me, we need somebody that's soft and wide-eyed open. and is stable and learned and who is going on the consistently bring us together rather than alienate us.

host: did you say soft at the beginning? guest: well, we need somebody whose eye is critical. but whose eye is not harsh and who is not hash in his manner. not to say he's necessarily hash. but i'm -- i'm looking for a leader that can bring us together. first of all, i don't like the presidential politics. if we spend any time on that, we're hurting what we're trying to do. i wish we had a law that you couldn't run for president until six months before the presidential election. i think we spend entirely too much angst and worry and time praint on it when we should be worrying about the real problems, which goes to the other major point. the biggest problem in washington is we fix symptoms of problems rather than problems. and that's why you see that

report with all that duplication. they are not fixing the problem. they are fixing the symptoms. as a doctor i was trained to identify what the real disease was not treat the symptoms. because if you cover it up that's all you do. we need a heart felt leader who understands that there's a commitment to help those that are less within the confines of the enumerated power and a leader that will tell us the truth about the very real problems we face, and bring us together. you know, the thing i noticed about america is is when we all get the idea that we're under threat, and everybody knows it, we come together. think about 9/11. that was the last time the nation was really together. i will tell you the threat we're facing today in terms of our budget, finance and interest cost is far greater threat than that ever was, and if our leaders will communicate

that, the american people will come together and we'll solve that problem. host: anybody on the g.o.p. side that has all those qualities? guest: oh, i don't want to go there. caller: good morning. i've heard a couple things you've said. i like the flat tax but i think i also heard you say that the government has doubled in the last 10 years and eight years of that was under the bush administration. guest: both parties, look, there's no partisanship with me in terms of the incompetent tense of increasing the spending in this country. >> well, you talked about a person that you'd like to see up there. i think obama if it most of the description. guest: i think with the budget he put out, he totally failed

to communicate to the american people the problems we have. his budget doubles our debt from $13.8 trillion to $27 trillion in 10 years. i love him, personally, as a friend and as a man. he has done more to harm small business and medium-size business. there's been more regulations put out in his first year of presidency than eight years of bush and clinton. he's already achieved more regulations that will impede growth and activity in this country than both those administrations did over 16. although i love him, there's a lot of places where someone said what's wrong with paying what we owe before tax cuts? guest: there's -- first of all,

that's the inflammatory words we give. we have a safety net in this countries that phenomenal. you know, if you look at -- i would tell whoever wrote that, they ought to read a book called "the tragedy of american compassion." and what we've done to ourselves by keeping people down through our safety nets rather than lifting people up. but if you would read that book and then email me, i would love to have a personal discussion with you about how to best help those that need our help. because we're not doing it today. host: george, a republican from tennessee. caller: hello. i was wondering if the senator could tell me -- my memory's not really all that good, but how long did the democrats have control of the congress --

total control while president bush was the president? guest: gosh. host: well, they took over in 2006. guest: so two years. host: four years, because we lost in 2010. caller: so when they blame president bush for a lot of these problems, i guess they can also probably blame themselves. was the president also in that congress? >> yes. guest: yes. look, i think you make a point that may be factly correct. but doesn't help us. again, i would just say when we're pointing fingers, the entire congress, both republican and democrats are guilty of not doing a great job. thinking in the parochial or in other words, the state. when we take our oath, they mention your state. you're a congressman for the united states to do the best

thing for the united states, not the best thing for your state. and when the parochial oversteps the national, and when theer short-2er78 oversteps the long-term, and preventing them from doing what they should. host: tom, you're on the air. caller: good morning. greta, i would really appreciate at some future time if you would put up on the screen what the taxes are for other countries and relative to ours. but what i really called for -- i agree with you. i'm a democrat. but i think what you're saying today is really right on. so i'm not trying -- you blame the taxes for the corporations as a reason for their going outside of the united states. guest: let's talk for a minute about what are the taxes on

american corporation. we're the only country in the world that has a worldwide tax system. so if you pay money, if you have a plant in germany and you pay germany for the taxes there. if you want to bring the net profit home after that. then we're going to charge you taxes on it. so the taxes never come home. they leave the money over there. they invest the money in a new plant over there rather than building a plant here, otherwise they have to pay 25%. on the must be they bring home so they can have more money by never bringing the money overwhelm. -- there's only one country in the world that has a higher corporate tax rate than we do. only one. it sounds like i'm defending corporations. what i'm defending is we want capital to go where it will

benefit us the most. and when we have policies that say don't bring your money home, because we're going to tax it differently than anybody else in the world does, it's going to stay there. think of all those invested in china who are not bringing the profits home. if they could bring it home, we would create jobs and change this unemployment situation. we have a jobless recovery right now, essentially, because of productivity and deficiency. but also because of our tax system. host: ida? caller: i don't understand that. i mean, it's -- that's much more complex than just lowering corporate taxes. that has to do with a lot of other is that you have i could not talk about. but i suggest that this tax

business you're talking about is merely one of the reasons corporations leave this country and work elsewhere. or one of the reasons we lose money on costs. i think the less labor costs, the less regulations are just as important. i'd love to know how you would figure -- how your -- you and five other guys would pro rate the different things like inefficiencies. effectiveness. regulations. host: let's get an answer, ida. guest: well, the best way to pro rate anything is to look at the u.s. constitution. you measure all these programs. is it within the enumerated power of the federal constitution that the federal government do this? i think a case could be made that if the federal government keeps growing, we won't need

states anymore, because we preempted everything in a state area. guest: you judge all those programs, whether it be duplication or regulation. is this a role of the federal government? is it constitutional? the problem with the health care bill is not the health care bill. we have the largest expansion of the commerce clause ever which says the government now has the ability to tell you what to do in regards to buying what you can or can't. there isn't anything the government can tell you to do as a u.s. citizen. that's why the health care bill is dangerous. we need more local control. more local decisions. more state decisions and fewer

federal decisions. and on things that are truly national in scope, we ought to weigh in. when they are not, we ought to leave that to the states and cities and municipalities and counties to do for themselves. it's like education. i'm criticized often, because i don't think the constitution -- as a matter of fact, frank lynn delano roosevelt and lyndon johnson didn't think the federal constitution gave anything in terms of the constitution for the education. one of our biggest difficulties in the future is do we have an educated, competitive workforce? education is lower at every level than it was when we first started the federal role in education. so i would put forward that we've not done a good job. not that our intentions are bad

or that we don't have good intentions, but what we have done hadn't worked. so let's put it in the hands of the local school boards and the states about how we educate our kids. for the same amount of dollars, we'll get a whole lot more value. host: the senator is referencing a new g.a.o. report. there was stories in the papers yesterday. more stories today. the senator requested the report from the g.a.o. looking at overlapping and duplicate initiatives. 100 different surface transportation programs, etc. they were linking it and we're linking it to our website. the lead on this report will be our guest monday. so we'll dig into this report with a little more detail on monday.

caller, on our independent line, you're on the air. caller: good morning. on the corporate tax thing, of the 100 companies in the united states, 83 of them paid zero in taxes. we had one company that has no bid contracts with our government. it's not even a united states company anymore. halliburton moved to bahrain. and we're letting all our money go out. y'all are still backing the corporations that are taking the money out of the united states. they give all the tax deductions to the big corningses saying research, development, ideaa, ideaa, ideaa. then give them over $10 billion in credits. guest: it's much greater than that. first of all, who is you-all,

number one? and number two, is we're trying to fix that. there's a $1.3 trillion in tax expenditures in the tax code. we're trying to take that away. that's why you see the effective tax rates. the fact is we think everybody ought to pay their fair share. people have put in all these things through the years to help certain industries or help certain areas. we need to limit. let the money flow where it will and here's your rate. and everybody pay their fair share. so when you say you-all, that's an indictment of who? congress? we me? host: well, when you say we, who are you talking about? guest: i'm talking about the gang of six. those trying to solve the problems of this country. caller: good morning. i'm ooh voter, a taxpayer and from the private sector. senator, itch little confidence in the gang of six.

i've called senator durbin's office many times in the past few years trying to get him not to spend more money, and i didn't have much luck. number two, you had a previous caller who was complaining about not having a cost of living. well, we in the private sector pension they are ins, we haven't had cost of living for years. so there's a lot of people who don't want to have any skin in the game. and that's my comment this morning. guest: was she from illinois? host: yes. guest: i can't answer to why you're not -- why you haven't heard back from senator durban. i can tell you i don't get a chance to call a lot of people back but i read every letter that comes in my office. host: emails too? guest: emails and letters. i think what she's hit on is a very important point. she doesn't have any confidence.

i don't know why they would have confidence in light of this report. we have to earn that confidence by making and doing the hard choices. and being truthful about what's in front of us. there is a crisis of confidence in our country. one of the reasons economic rebound is less is because people aren't confident about the future. and that's one of my criticisms of the president. he needs to lead in terms of talking about the problems, so people can have confidence. number one, we've identified what the problem was. that's why i was totally point ised in his -- pointing this out. he said we saved a trillion by freezing spending.

actually his budget puts us in a worse hole than where we are right now if we didn't have a budget at all. again, we have to restore confidence by talking truthfully and bluntly with the american people. but also giving them hope. because the thing that i liked about this last year in our country is that i don't care if they are conservative or liberal, people are starting to get engaged in their federal government. i find it true americans are a lot smarter outside of the federal government. i would want everybody to know if you get involved, you can have an impact. maybe they don't call you back. but your message gets received. host: the senate is going to vote today on a two-week extension. voting yes or no?

guest: i haven't decided yet. i'm going to talk on the floor as soon as i leave here at 9:40 i will look to go to the floor and discuss this. host: coming up we'll talk to the chaka fattah. first a news update from c-span radio. >> it's 36 past the hour. egyptian officials say two assault ships, the u.s.s.'s have entered the canal and on their way to the ped trainian. the ships are moving closer to the libyan coast along with marines after orders from defense secretary robert gates. he said any military action in libya must be carefully weighed because of broad consequences.

meanwhile muammar gaddafi said he will fight until quote the last man and last woman to defend his country. earlier france and britain said they will begin to air lift and ferry some of the thousands of refugees. the operation is being carried out in coordination with the european union. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the people of libya have made themselves clear. s the time for god got to go. -- it is time for gaddafi to go . now. without further violence or delay. >> world leaders continue to speak out about the future of a muammar gaddafi-led libya. watch what you want, when you want at our c-span library.

>> m.i.t. professor is on book tv this sunday. she's written books including "american scriptture." join our three-hour conversation with paulene maier taking your phone calls, emails and tweets on c-span 2. watch previous in depth programming like book tv.org where you can also find the entire schedule. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the house voted to approve a two-week extension to fund the government past the decline. you voted for it, but when it was voted on to vote to the end of the fiscal year, you voted no. explain. guest: well, when we're voting

for c.r.'s, we're voting for specific spending. it includes some of the spending the president may have suggested. or reductions. but this is really a bill that's going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the government. $61 billion. i thought that the cuts were in the wrong place. host: the cuts two weeks ago? guest: yes. and i voted no. but this was the cuts that had been pushed by the administration and supported by the congress in areas we generally agree on. there's still a big argument and debate to come and the question of whether or not there's going to be a real crisis is still in front of us. what the american public needs to know is all of us, democrats, republicans, we should really not be engaged in this back and forth. we really need sit down.

i think we need a budget summit where we work through these issues. i agree with senator coburn who said we have a serious problem in terms of federal priorities and spending and debt. i think we need major tax reform. i have a proposal i'll be rolling out next week about what we can do to reform our taxes. you've got smart callers on c-span. what corningses actually pay -- corporations actually pay, 2/3 of our companies don't pay any federal taxes at all. so this always -- there's always confusing. i would invite people to study the matter. we need to get to the point where whatever country we're going to have, if we're going to be a super power, we're going to have the greatest

military in the world, we can't have it on the cheat. we have to pay for whatever we have. whether it's the president's debt commission in which i was supportive of what he had to say, it still doesn't balance the budget. still have to pay for cuts. we have debts of in the double digits. in the trillions. and we have challenges that are still unmet that we need to meet which will require us to spend money. so we have to really think about what kind of country we're going to have and how we're going to pay for it. host: some republicans said they will continue to pass in the house two-week c.r.'s if the two sides can't come to an agreement until september 30, the ovebd this fiscal year. does that mean you're open to voting yes if this vote keeps

reoccurring? yes on two-week extensions? >> no. and i will vote no if we continue in this pattern. the leaders of the military came out and said the -- if they have to continue to function like this -- they need a full-year budget. it's threatening our national security. so the politicians, those of us here in washington, we need to do our work. we need to sit in a room for however long is necessary until we can agree on how much we're going to spend this fiscal year and next fiscal year. because as the new policeman window opens, it's going -- as the new political window opens, it's going to be more difficult. so i think it's time for us to

have a seminar similar to what the first president bush did, get everyone in a room and work this out. host: representative chaka fattah is a member of the appropriations committee and our c-span bus is visitting the university of el paso this morning and 11 zhrigets from that university with a variety of majors will be participating in the show aboard the bus, asking the congressman questions. the university is located a few minutes from downtown el paso. over 20,000 students attend it. we'd like to thank time warner cable for helping arrange this and dr. frank perez who prepared the students for today. our first student is a communications major at the university of texas. go ahead. >> good morning, everyone. greetings from el paso, first of all.

my question is with nasa. in terms of the budget cuts to nasa, do you see these financial changes as indefinite? or do we need reinstate these funds? and if congress -- guest: first of all, nasa should be congratulated on a very significant mission by discovery. it's its last mission. s the docked at the international space station and really a major success on behalf of nasa and its administration and staff and also the obama administration. but the shuttle program is coming to an end. administration and congress has agreed we are ending the constellation program. we passed an authorizing bill that would have nasa refocus

its objectives and bring them in line with a goal worthy of a great nation, which is to go into deep space with both a target of an android or a mars. out into the future. investment in technology will be needed to accomplish this. so nasa has a critical role in terms of space exploration. we have competition in this area from some of our international competitors. and it's very important. we invested less than one penny out of each dollar for this. but i think all of us can agree whether it's for science or other purposes that we continue to go forward as a country. but there are significant decisions that have to be made. one is we talk about

duplications and discussions about the g.a.o. report before i came on. we have nasa in space and noah dealing with the oceans. noah needs to have three sat lights up at all times to deal with the challenges of its responsibility. but i think we should get noa out of the satellite-launching business. it's a way we can save money and have a much more efficient and effective satellite program in terms of launches. so i think there's ways to deal with duplication and efficiency . and i don't want to see this go on for the rest of the world and not have a part in it. the international space

station, we took part in building that. it's an international partnership with all the great nations. host: johnathan is a republican from atlanta, georgia. you're next. go ahead. caller: good morning, congressman, $40 billion, $3.7 trillion budget is insignificant. i think it's time to get serious and come together. i would suggest you look at what canada did actually in 1995. there was an economist on c-span a few weeks ago. i caught the end of the conversation where he laid out specifically what they did. their debt to g.d.p. ratio was nearly 70%. and they came together. and i believe it's almost universally across the board 20% cuts, and they completely turned around their fiscal situation. now, i don't know the details. i think you should look into it.

now, when it comes to our budgets and expansion of the government. every 10 years our budget is nearly doubled. now, i don't know how many american's -- how many americans' households's income has doubled. but until you guys really start tightening your belt -- even the senator from nebraska said there's hundreds of billions of dollars sitting in federal agencies unspent. guest: we probably agree and disagree on different points. there's spending that we should do and spending we should cut. you can see the leader of the tea party in south carolina come out today and in favor of ear marks because of the need to work on the ports in south carolina. we have a situation where we have toe invest in our ports.

we can't deny those kinds of investments. singapore invested $4 million in -- you have to have a discussion. to say we shouldn't have any, you know, debt, you know, you have to know that in most homes, people have a mortgage. you don't pay for your home all at once. you pay for it over a number of years. so i don't think we should have debt on our operating budget. we shouldn't go into debt to buy groceries. i think we should pay as we go. and i have a proposal to do just that. we are up over $900 trillion in our economy each year. the idea that we can't afford a

$3 trillion or $4 trillion federal budget is not what we need to do. we need to pay for the government we want and whatever government we don't want, we need to come to a decision about it. host: let's go back to the digital bus, and via escape, mr. gonzalez is a senior and media double major. caller: good morning. in 2010 now that we have a $14 trillion debt -- guest: this is a part of our tax code i have talked about for a number of years, getting

out of the income tax business and going to a scounchings tax. there was a big hearing. it was set around the question of major tax reform. i think what came to light from republicans around democrats alike is that we're going to have to move to a consumption-based tax of some sort. the income tax which we've had for 102 years, it has run its course as a way to fund our government. by haw, we have made it permissible for corporations to have two sets of books. one for their government that say they didn't make money and one for their shareholders that say they did. i had to change my proposal on my fee. it's one i believe in, and i'm going to have a refined proposal on this question coming out in a few -- next

week, i believe we're going to introduce it. host: kathleen a democratic from indiana. caller: good morning. i have watched you for a while. i have so much aren't for you. i think you are wonderful. i have been holding my tongue since the november elections and i am at my with it's end. s the -- i am at my whit's end. it is getting out of hand. there are two americans. the very wealthy and the very poor. my husband is a steel worker in the union for 34 years. and i don't understand why it is like saying a dirty word to say tax the rich. have the rich pay their share. we are middle class and trying real hard to stay in it. but we end up really footing

the bill, ok? as far as the so-called middle class entitlements are breaking the bank. host: congressman? guest: there's a pulitzer prize-winning author who wrote a book called "perfectly legal." it examines our tax code and how it works to the disadvantage of a person just like our caller. how, in fact, when you get above $500,000 in our country, people pay little or nothing in taxes. and there are so many loop holes. you heard senator coburn talk about this. what is called tax expenditures or tax breaks. and they are really in the tens of thousands of pages, there are loop holes that allow people to evade taxes. these have been put in there over the years by the congress. and part of what the

president's commission on debt has recommended is doing away with a lot of these loop holes that senator coburn has suggested. my proposal is we really need to have a system where everybody pays the same taxes. host: so you would agree to lower the corporate tax rate to close the loop holes? guest: my initiative was getting rid of all corporate taxes and substituting it with a 1% or lower fee on transactions. the one thing that happens in our economy every day is money moves around. the federal government gets little of it. if nbc is purchased by g.e. we would not get a dime. under my proposal you could

fund the federal government and do it on a fair basis by that. and we could get out of this state of mind where everybody is worried if they can't produce everett and such. this is a much more, i think an american approach, as we are putting this out there as a new idea. we are continuing to promote it. right now we are focusing on trying to bring it in and test market it under the notion of paying off the debt. host: back to our c-span bus at the university of texas. aaron? caller: good morning. congressman fattah, increasing funding for hispanics, how

important are these on a national scale? guest: well we have democratic realities in our country. we are now ninth in the world. we have much larger countries taking over and jumping ahead of us. the demographic is if oui going to be number one by the president's goal of 2020 as far as adults with a college degree, hispanics -- hispanic-serving institutions, universities on or that cater to native americans on indian reservations and historically black colleges. colleges in a leasha. places where we have left children in the had owes. we need to enroll them and get them moving through what is

called the educational pipeline. so i think it's critically important. the president has done more on this than any president ever. we now have a $2.5 billion investment in community colleges. and colleges such as the one that this student is referring to where we have a significant percentage of students who have english as their second language. so we need to do more as a country, or we're going to slip further behind. host: oklahoma city. robert is joining us. an independent caller. you're on the air. caller: yes. i served in the air force. retired as a vietnam vet and later served as a missionary minister overseas. i have two questions. number one, you say you want everyone to pay their fair share yet a great percentage of americans do not pay any taxes at all, and secondly, why is this congress dealing with continuing resolutions when it

was the responsibility of the previous congress to pass a budget? why did the budget not get passed with the super majorities that the democrats had? host: congressman? guest: first of all, let me thank you for your service. my brother was a veteran in the air force. this notion that you have americans that don't pay any taxes at all. this is really republican propaganda. they say they pay no taxes but as soon as you question them they say they pay no income taxes. but the truth is if you earn an income you pay 10% on a payroll tax and if you go over a certain amount, you pay or are liable for an income tax. there are many americans that are working class americans working in stores right in your neighborhood that pay a higher percentage of their income in payroll taxes than people are paying in income taxes.

so we should never disparage our neighbors by saying our neighbors are not paying their fair share. in move their minds they are paying too much to the federal government. so we should stop lying and we should be straightforward, and i don't blame the caller. it's just that a lot of politicians use this phrase. and they do it purposefully to mislead people. whether it's income tax or payroll, it's federal and it gets paid to the government. next, the last congress did fail. the congress, which was -- which didn't pass or finish its work when president bush was in office, that's like what happened here. we had to finish the work. people were concerned the omnibus had too many dollars on

ear marks. it went down in defeat in the senate in december, and that was the last chance of the last congress finishing its work. that's why this republican majority has to do the work now. but it can't be done only in the house. it has to be in agreement between the house and senate and white house. that's why i'm suggesting we have a budget summit. we get everybody in the room as adults and we find a way to come to an agreement. our country deserves nothing less. . .

guest: it is going to cost the pentagon more money for recruitment purposes through these delays than if we passed a year-long appropriations bill. we have to fund the government between now and september 30. we are relatively smart people. we have been elected by our neighbors. we should sit in a room and work it out. that's my view. i'm not the president. i'm not the chair of any of the committee's. host: you are an appropriate your. guest: i do have a vote. i would much rather us figure

our way forward, rather than live along -- than limp along. we will all have to live with the results. is.ever the result is, it i think we should get in the room. the federal government has done this before. reagan and bush did it. i think president obama should do it. let's get everybody in a room and work it out. host: time warner cable has arranged a visit for us at the university of texas at el paso. our next to it, richard, is a political science major at the collins -- our next caller is richard, a political science major. caller: democrats and republicans are engaged in a heated debate that could lead to a government shutdown if a

compromise is not reached between the two parties on a new spending bill by march 18. do you believe a meaningful compromise can be reached between the two parties? guest: i believe they can and i believe the country should expect us to come to a reasonable compromise. the differences are not that great. the differences are really about what we would invest in. the notion that -- if you read "roll call" today, you would see all the chair people in the committees of the house talking about their own budget and running their committees and how the budget cuts are making it almost impossible for them to do their work. last week -- we are not going to fix the dome.

the reality is that the leak in your roof is going to cost you a lot more down the road. we have to be smart about this. we are going to spend trillions of dollars over the next two years whether we cut $4 billion or $10 billion to it will not fundamentally address the deficit problem. what we do not want to do, however, is brought our country of its appropriate future. we want to make sure we make the investments in education and our national defense. if we have to cut spending, let's do it. host: let's go to a democrat in charleston, south carolina. thank you for hanging on the line. caller: what about the flat tax that they have in pennsylvania? guest: i think that we need to look at doing something

different. albert einstein said that we need to bring a different level of thinking to solving the problem than we brought when we created the problem. that's where we are. with the tax system we have -- it does not work. every poll shows that 80% of the public says the tax system does not work fairly. it's not just that i think it does not work fairly. you could get conservatives, liberals, other members of congress who know it does not work right. we need a system that works fairly. then we need to decide as a country what kind of country we have. i think we want to have one where the country -- where the airport, the roads, and the education system are the best in the world. we need to invest in innovation. we should not agree that we are a declining nation. we need to make a determination to have our country be number

one and passed that on to future generations -- and pass that on to future generations. host: our guest is representative chaka fattah, a democrat. we're talking about the continuing resolution to keep the government funded. the house passed a resolution last night for two weeks by a vote of 335 to 91. the senate will vote this morning. we want to keep you updated on the situation in libya. according to the ap wire, colonel gaddafi has said that libya's oil field and ports are safe and under control. he also said that libya will replace western banks and companies by others from china, russia, and brazil. he spoke at the capitol in $4 billion as his forces were

launching a counter offensive. cnn is reporting right now that rebels are seeking u.s. military aid and the u.s. is considering cutting off diplomatic ties to the country. we will go back to the college students joining us at the university of texas at -- in el paso. you are a political science major. go ahead. caller: good morning. on february 15, 2011, you addressed the $1 billion budget cuts and spending for law enforcement. what potential impact could this have on the southwest border region and specifically on taxes, which is in close proximity to one of the deadly cities in mexico, where about eight murders occur every day. guest: governor perry -- you are

absolutely correct. there was a proposal in the c.r., in the amendment, that would cut border security by hundreds of millions of dollars. what was amazing to me -- this was from a group of people in the majority who had been talking about how we need to invest more, but they wanted to make cuts. there was also an issue about the purchases of long rifles. along the border, we've seen that. the united states agent that was killed on the other side of the border was killed with a gun that was purchased in dallas. there was an amendment in the same c.r., the one that i voted against. the point is that there were in disastrous cuts.

if you said, could you find $61 billion to cut? i would say, yes. we should consolidate the nasa effort and we could save money, but we should not make foolish cuts. that's the issue. cutting border security at a time when you have a growing cartel of violence on our southwest border does not make a bunch of sense. the republican majority, which told the country, if they were given the majority, the woodwork to secure the border. host: we will go to a santa clara, california. jackie on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of issues that i think are all related. it has to do with the oil spill with bp and how they are back

their drilling oil again and making all that money. this is going to england. that's where they come from. we are not getting anything for them using our gulf to drill. also, relating to the wars in iraq -- they have oil fields in iraq. i'm confused about one of the wars. one of the wars we were in, they were burning their oil fields. host: do you have an answer? guest: first of all, we need to end our dependence on foreign oil so we don't have young americans losing their lives trying to deal with oil in the middle east. that is number one. the libya thing brings that even more into focus. at the end of the day, it's in all of our interest -- it has to

do much more with the oil then the circumstances of the people in these countries. it's very unfortunate. has to do with our country's dependence on oil. we need to move forward. i'm on the committee. we need to be investing more on renewable energy. one of the issues in the c.r. that i voted against was to cut investments in renewable energy. to answer the question, one of the biggest disgrace is in the federal government in terms of finances is the fact that we are not collecting tens of billions of dollars that we should collect on oil leases where people are drilling and getting oil and not paying their fair share of royalties. there was an effort made. they decided they did not want to proceed on addressing this issue. there is a challenge for the country as we go forward to make sure that we do have our fair

share of royalties for oil that is drilled here. host: out to 0 -- al-jazeera is reporting on the situation in libya. would you support a no-fly zone? guest: what i will not support is making decisions based on news reports. a lot of times, what you hear first is not always the factual truth. we need to think about what our responsibilities are. i agree with senator levin. before we decide that we are going to have a no-fly zone, we need to decide what we are there to do. are we there to attack ground positions? are there troops attacking people? is it just to make sure no one else flies in the air? what is the responsibility to react, if they are confronted

by air forces of other nations that may come to help libya. you solve the gesture by gaddafi -- you saw the gesture by gaddafi to china. we are engaged in two wars. we have now brought 100,000 troops home. we should extricate ourselves from afghanistan. the last thing we should do -- secretary gates was extraordinarily brilliant the other day, as he always is. this is a bush holdover. this is not someone president obama put in. he said -- anyone's suggesting that we should be engaging in far off course again -- far off wars again should have their head examined. yes, there's a situation in libya. there are reports vary widely about what is actually going on. before i, as a public official,

would say i want to take a particular course of action -- we need a lot more information. america has to understand that if we want to be the policeman for the world, it's going to cost a lot of money. host: on the c-span digital bus , a question for the congressman. caller: good morning. with your committee's process for suggesting a budget cut, how do you go about that? for example, there's a $194 million suggested cut in the department of justice is program for the state's criminal alien assistance. that's basically used in the southwestern united states, but it will affect the whole nation. how the you decide where not to spend the money? guest: it is a decision process

that you hope would be rational. there are states both to the north and to the south and there are states toward the interior of the country that have costs associated with the fact that they have percentages of people who are not citizens. the police services -- they have an obligation. law enforcement -- we reimburse for a share of the cost. i thought the idea that we would cut assistance to taxes, cut assistance to california for law enforcement in terms of dealing with some of the increased costs of people who are not documented and who are in those locales -- it does not make sense. the federal government has the

obligation to secure the borders. absence of perfect security at the boarders -- at the borders, we have to deal with the states. host: ray is a republican. go ahead. caller: you are the reason you are in the minority now. you are a perfect example of why we need term limits, a mandatory term limits -- term limits, mandatory term limits. guest: i'm sure people in my district heard your comment. we have a very effective term- limit process. voters can make a decision. i replaced an incumbent in a primary fight in my district. there may come a day -- i'm sure

there will -- where they will decide who they want to represent them in congress. host: are you concerned about redistricting? guest: it is an important issue and one that everyone should focus on, the politics of redistricting. i challenged it in court. they let the districts stand. because politics is part of the process, i think we have some reforms moving forward to get politics a little bit out of the redistricting. the reality is that everyone needs to have someone to represent them in the congress, if we are going to have the congress. the districts are doing to have 700,000 or so people nationwide. i look forward to contesting it with someone who agrees with the

last caller. i think the reality is that districts are becoming more democrats and republicans and less competitive, overall, as both parties want to secure their incumbents. host: we will try to get a couple more college students. they're joining us from the university of texas at el paso. david, you are up. >> good morning. i was wondering -- why do you think funding for education is one of the first things considered for being cut, instead of funding for special interest groups? guest: senator coburn is a great guy and a member of the senate -- and a self term-limit

himself. education is critically important, however the federal government should do little or nothing in the area of education -- i do not agree with that. there's nothing in the constitution. i disagree. i think the reality is when you look at the 33 most developed nations in the world, in the latest international test, we scored so poorly. we should all be concerned. we are losing our way. it has an impact. we will have a hearing later on today on the patent office at 10:00 a.m. in my committee. you know, for the first time in the country's history, most of the patent applications are coming from foreign sources. we have to think about where we are going to go in terms of education. we have to get all of these

young people a chance to be as intelligent as all of your callers, even the ones that disagree with me. we have to compete with countries much larger than ours. china, india -- if you put the two of them together, that's 3 billion people. the only possibility for our country to go forward and to be number one in this world is to educate every single child to their god-given potential. host: a communications major is on the digital bus. good morning. >> good morning. [inaudible] education and other programs such as medicare and social security. guest: i think that we have to decide -- we have to make a fundamental decision about whether we have a responsibility to be our brother's keeper.

the first commandment is that we love god, but the second is that we love our neighbor. the question is, do we have responsibilities to elderly citizens? do we have a responsibility to help those that are sick? do we have a responsibility to educate children? i believe we do. there are people who have a very different opinion about whether we have the responsibility to look out for anybody other than ourselves. i guess that is where the rugged individualism is. these are the two competing issues in our country. i think the ideas circle the wagons. to protect women, children, the elderly, and even then -- all of us have to work together to move

our country forward versus casting people aside because they are born with disabilities or they are of a different race or they do not speak english as a first language or they are older. we have a responsibility to work together as a country. i think that's the only way we can go forward. host: one last quick phone call. bill in florida, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, congressman. i believe protection of the old and the week is moral and not -- of the old and the weak is moral and not legal. the governor is being forced to take money to the heights -- money to build high-speed rail. do you agree with such an expenditure of federal money, not to mention what it would put

the people of florida on the hook for later? my second question, in tax year 2008, the top 10% of all personal income tax payers accounted for 70% of income taxes paid. i'm wondering how much more you believe -- guest: what percentage of income did they have? caller: the top 10% of income earners. the threshold was $113,000. guest: what percentage of the nation's in, did they have? you are talking about the percentage of their tax burden. what's the opposite point that you don't want to make? caller: how much money did they make? guest: yes. we have a skewed situation. the top 1% of income earners in the country have control of the majority of the income. host: do you know the percentage? guest: he's talking about 1980.

this is the top 1% that has more than 50% of the income on our nation. he wants to. the question to how much they pay in taxes. we have a situation where you have skewed the and come to the super rich -- the income to the super rich. the bush tax cuts were skewed. that is what this whole debate with president obama is about. when bill gates said he should be paying more. when warren buffett says -- why is my secretary paying a higher rate of taxes? these are real questions that we have to grapple with. obviously, the last caller does not want to grapple intellectually with the entire challenge. host: we're out of time.

thank you for talking to our viewers and our students at the university of texas at el paso. guest: i love talking to students. thank you. host: the c-span digital bus is in el paso, texas. we want to thank time-warner cable for arranging that. also, the department chair of communications, dr. frank pr erez. coming up next, we turn our attention to the continuing resolutions that are being debated. it's in the senate this morning. what happens if the two chambers and the president are at this situation again in two weeks? we will take a look back at 1995 and 1996. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> billionaire warren buffett speaking earlier on cnbc says the u.s. economy is on the mend and has reached the point where

the government stimulus can be reduced. he said he is optimistic about the future because of the strength of the u.s. system. a report today by mastercard advisers spending pulse says consumers were buying in february. purchase increases in everything from clothing to furniture. clothing sales were up 6%. president obama may be putting government property up for sale. an official says the president will propose a board to review government owned real estate that could be sold or consolidated later today. any recommendations would be sent to congress for approval. according to the anonymous official, it could save $15 billion in the first three years. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, on line, and

social media networking sites. find our content any time through c-span video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington, your way. created by cable, provided by a -- provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jonathan allen, congressional reporter for "politico" and here to talk about the impact of a government shutdown. a report about the shutdown of the federal government looks at past government shutdown. the house passed it last night. the senate will vote this morning. it looks like it will go to the white house. it could be back here two weeks from now and facing the same situation. what could cause a government shutdown? guest: basically, what causes a

government shutdown is when the government runs out of the ability to spend money. this past year, they were not able to get them all done. they were operating on a continuing resolution. it's a short-term stopgap. it goes through fiscal 2011. right now, they are about to run out of money. they have got to extend it for there you have the two-week bill that looks like it will get done. we are talking about march madness with basketball. in a couple of weeks, it will also probably be on capitol hill. host: crs said appropriations are not enacted into law.

continuing resolution is not established. a presidential veto over a pending c.r., which happened in 1995. funding gaps, which happened in 1996. bring us back to that situation. what was the situation then? guest: there were two shutdowns around that time in 1995 and 1996. the first one was very brief. it was a more extreme shutdown of the government, in a way, because there was not as much preparation or expectation. in 1996, there was a 21-day shutdown. it was more expected. there was so much brinksmanship going on. the two sides were aware of that. there was a partial shutdown. some portions of government were funded and others were not. during that period, there were furloughs and government workers were not getting paid. a lot of government workers were

working and not getting paid or not working at all. they ended up getting back pay for that. i think one thing that's important to remember -- a lot of times, the government shutdown idea gets completed with what happens if we hit the debt ceiling. that's a different thing. we are on that deadline, too. if the federal government shuts down, you might not be able to go to a national park. you might not get the services you are used to from the government. from the point of view of the workers, they are not getting paid. if the debt ceiling gets hit, it is a different scale. a government shutdown is not a good thing. it is not nearly the crisis and catastrophe we are talking about if we get to the debt limit increase not happening, which would be sometime between april

and may. host: the impact of past government shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 -- the overall cost, $1.4 billion. what is different, if this were to happen today, then if this happened in 1995 and 1996? guest: a couple of things. the government is a little bit better equipped to deal with this because they've seen it before. the government shut down a few times before 1995 and 1996. early in the reagan administration, it happened. there is better preparation for this kind of thing to happen. the other thing is the reportable difference. a lot of viewers are interested in who wins the shutdown battle.

you have different dynamics. the republican class of that came in that wants to cut spending -- they ran on that. they were elected by it and no one has been fooled by their agenda. in 1995, they were elected on reforming congress largely and then they tried to cut spending and got into a fight with president clinton over that. the ground has shifted over time. there's more of an appetite now to cut spending. bill clinton versus newt gingrich in 1995 and 1996 might not play out again with president obama and the congress. host: we are talking about the impact government shutdown of governments with jonathan allen. ap is reporting that a witness says a libyan warplanes struck a scene at the eastern oil port. ap also says that the prosecutor

of the international criminal court says he is opening a formal investigation into possible crimes against humanity in libya. in "the financial times" this morning, secretary of state hillary clinton has said that the u.s. should move forward on prosecuting gaddafi for the lockerbie bombing. we will go to new york. moses is a democrat. you are first. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. go ahead with your question. caller: i just have one comment. democrats are not going to get anything done under the republican regime. i was watching the ninth 2008 -- i was watching them in 2008.

[inaudible] host: the influence of the tea party in this whole debate. party has been very influential. it's all about cutting spending. they do not want to articulate it this way. they do not want the brinksmanship. they do not want to be seen as shutting down the government. a lot of them prioritize -- this is a group that strongly anti- government or certainly wants to see a smaller government. the obviously have a range among them. the idea of shutting down the government for a few days is not as bad to them as having to operate at the same level. they are having a huge

influence. john boehner cannot move the house forward without the agreement of a good portion freshmen of portion class. host: nathan in grand rapids, michigan. good morning. go ahead. caller: i am 31. i have been laid off for the last couple of years. 1990's, it's and seems like everyone was united. today, everybody wants to point the finger. standing here, watching politics and however but is involved with money and wants to cut -- and how everybody is involved with money and wants to cut. hallam i suppose to view that? i understand that everybody has to make sacrifices. when is enough enough? guest: we have an interesting

dichotomy. we hear about a lot people making sacrifices. a lot of people feel like they already are making sacrifices. so many people are unemployed in this country. other people are underemployed. the dollars are not doing what they used to do. there are not available for a lot of people in this country. in a lot of ways, we have become accustomed to a lifestyle or standard of living that is hard to keep going. at the same time, we have people doing very well and who want to see government cut spending so that -- in their belief -- the pain does not grow even more. there are obviously a lot of different perspectives. the gentleman feels like he has been sacrificing enough and may be cutting back on government benefits is not the way to go. host: we will go to the democratic line. matt in ohio.

welcome to the conversation. go ahead. caller: good morning. i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to voice my opinion. i think the united states needs to quit being the keeper of the world. we have hundreds of thousands of people in this country that are starving to death. they do not care. everything about overseas, they care about. anything that happens in this country, the heck with. host: foreign aid is often an issue that comes up. people are upset about how much is spent. it's less than 1% of the federal budget, i believe, but it is on the chopping block this time around. guest: tens of billions of dollars -- it's a very small part of the budget. it is on the chopping block for just the reason you heard from the gentleman. there are so many americans out

there that are watching all the things that are going on in the world. i think we're often imputed to be doing more than we are. you can see what's going on in the middle east. there's so much attention to what is going on there. whether or not we are spending money on those issues or a lot of money on those issues -- libya, tunisia, for instance. there is an appetite to cut foreign aid. host: let's go back to the impact of past government shutdowns. when you take a look at what crs put together with what happened to agencies, it says the cdc ceased to monitor diseases and toxic waste cleanup stopped at 609 sites

host: what happens? who decides which agency officials are essential? guest: it is an important distinction, depending on the level of shutdown. certainly, the agencies are already funded. in some years, some of the appropriations bills have gone forward. those agencies are able to operate. host: many people say that's the big difference between 1995 and 1996 and what we are facing now. half those appropriations bills were already passed in 1995 and 1996. guest: the pentagon is now getting its money in two-week chunks, for instance, which is probably not a good way to plan for the department of the pentagon that has so much responsibility for our safety and for two ongoing wars. obviously, the wrap up of one in

iraq and one in afghanistan. it's a huge difference between 1995 and 1996 and now. a good portion of the government was funded back then. i cannot remember exactly which set of bills have gone through. now, and to answer the question, you will see a lot of subsequent decision making by agency heads and political appointees in the obama administration as to who is absolutely essential to keep the government running and to keep the public safe. more than anything, it ends up as a pain somewhere that's often not talk about on c-span. this is difficult for smaller agencies to handle. for people who rely on government grants that were supposed to come through on a certain date and a half to get pushed back. government employees and that are at the lower end -- for them

to be out of a paycheck for two weeks or three weeks, it can affect their rent. it becomes a problem at all levels. you are talking about a few million people that work for the federal government. all of that is problematic. there are some potential safety issues. as you noted, a cdc not monitoring diseases. i think they do their best about making decisions about what is necessary and what is not. in a lot of cases, people will work without pay. on capitol hill, they are moving towards that direction. the senate is considering that bill today. host: under current law, you cannot volunteer for federal service. in other words, you have to be paid. guest: it's interesting that you need that change in law for that to be able to happen. congressional aides -- contrary to popular belief --

congressional aides worked very long hours. i married to a congressional aide. i can vouch for a longer than eight-hour day that she works every day. these people are working -- these people are used to working under less than ideal situations right now. people are saying, let's make their lives harder. these people believe in public service. in a lot of cases, you will see them, even if they are not technically working for the federal government. you will see a lot of work get done. host: good morning. caller: good morning. basically, i think this started january 1, 1994. we are still feeling the effects from the 1995 and 1996 ones. it keeps on building. it paved the way for free trade with china. it paved the way for free trade with other countries. trading with china and some of

these other countries is light trading with a shady drug dealer on the corner. host: a caller in vermont. what do you think? caller: i want to know why some of these wealthier countries that we protect could not pay us for some of our services. host: a republican in vermont. we are talking about past government shutdowns. a democrat in baltimore, maryland, go ahead caller:. caller: good morning. republicans only talk about what they want to talk about. they do not want to talk about eight years of ronald reagan. they do not want to talk about eight years of george bush. if you put the deficits they accumulated together, it would probably account for at least 85% or 90% of the national deficit. the house speaker back then,

newt gingrich, he calls himself such a smart guy. he did such a terrible job that his own party made him step down. john boehner seems to be going along on the same course as .amper -- as him host: a politics conversation. someone said the politics are different when it comes to president obama. he does not have the record and the capital that president clinton had when it came to the government shutdown is in 1995 and 1996. therefore, clinton was not blamed back then. guest: there are a few things that are different. first, you do not have newt gingrich, who became the issue himself. he talked about the brinksmanship. he talked about how he wanted to shut down the federal government. he said he was pushed to the back of air force one. it was very petty. republicans lost on that.

john boehner has very carefully made sure not to talk about shutting down the federal government and not to be seen as the person pushing things in that direction. i think that is helpful to republicans. i think the mood in the country has changed, especially in regard to spending. we talk about that earlier. i think it's much more palatable now than it was back then. i think the republicans were elected on a promise to cut spending. i also think there's an issue for democrats here. their caucuses in the house and senate are not unified on this. there are 23 seats on the democratic side that are open in the next election in 2012. a lot of those democrats want to vote for spending cuts. they do not want to be seen on the wrong side of the issue. when the house sends over a bill with spending cuts, you will see harry reid's caucus, where he continues to have a majority,

you will see him losing votes and not able to keep up with the promise that he wants to make. we saw this in the debate on the two-week c.r. the first thing republicans said is there's no way they're doing this -- host: senate democrats. guest: senate democrats said they are not going to do this. nobody is fooled by it. one week later, they pop it right through the senate in about 15 minutes at 11:00 a.m. and it goes on to the president. a big reason for that, harry reid does not have the support of his caucus to maintain the spending. host: the vote will take place at 11:00 a.m. on c-span2. we're expecting the vote around then paid a two-week extension to keep the government running through march 18. let's talk about the vote in the house yesterday. 335 democrats and republicans voted for the extension.

only 91 voted against this. it was about 83 democrats that voted against it. democratic leadership was split. guest: i think that speaks to their personal divisions. i think nancy pelosi is certainly someone who comes from the left upper caucus. she always has been. the position for people on the left was that this kind of a spending cut was too much. the position for -- the position for the people in the center -- steny hoyer represent a lot of government employees. i think you will see a lot of house democrats, when faced with voting against the continuing operations of the government, will not want to do that. 331 votes is more than three- quarters of the house. host: jim, a republican in alabama. good morning. caller: good morning.

your reporter equated not increasing the debt ceiling to defaulting on the national debt. i believe that is correct. we cannot authorize any new borrowing. guest: it means we are not authorizing new borrowing, but because of so many things that are on autopilot with borrowing , it's not likely that you will see a congressional action that will cut spending and raise taxes enough to prevent it. you could make small adjustments to carry it forward. we are sort of on autopilot with a lot of programs that we programsdefund -- with a lot of programs that we cannot defund.

congress can extend it for a couple of months, but not a real, comprehensive solution. host: a democrat in west virginia. you are on the air. caller: i was wondering if the government shutdown in the previous year, if it will affect people on social security or on government housing programs. guest: it really depends from program to program. in the case of social security, the czechs are automated -- the checks are automated. you do not need a whole lot of people getting them out. your ability to petition for grievances from the administration will be limited during the days that there is a shutdown. the checks should go out. as far as housing goes, i'm not

sure how the voucher program works. a lot of the government programs these days are better set up to handle short-term interruptions. certainly, social security, which runs a very low overhead. i think people would be very surprised by that because of how big of a program it is. i think it's somewhere in the 2% range in terms of the overhead. host: mike in pennsylvania, welcome to the conversation. caller: although there is undoubtedly a massive waste in the federal government that could be solved by proper oversight by congress, we do not have to shut down the necessary parts of our government. if we were to go back to a dwight eisenhower federal tax system, the top percent of our income earners were taxed at over 90% of their income. capital gains were treated at income, not treated at a lower%

to 86% of our stocks are held by 1% of our population. host: that was mike in pennsylvania. let's go to george, a republican. caller: people who keep their television set on, if they could push the record button, they could review their entire conversation. that's just a tip epergnes -- that is just a tip. i have an idea. sponsored, international lottery out of the sea -- out of d.c. if a foreigner wins and qualifies for a green card, we could bring him back here and he could spend his proceeds. i think there are other international lotteries. probably the one people are familiar with is the irish

sweepstakes. a lottery out of washington, d.c. let's bring back trillions to this country. host: ken is a democrat in louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. host: we are listening, ken. caller: yes, i am an ex-vietnam vet. i was able to go through v.a. and it paid for my education. all the republicans want to do is cut education. you know, we get what we pay for. host: do you remember the shutdowns in 1995 and 1996? caller: yes, i am what you call a reagan democrat. yes, i remember when it was shut down. i was not on a government thing. i was working. i worked all of my life.

host: do you remember who you blinked? caller: i blamed the whole government. i'm a moderate. only idiots in washington point their fingers at each other. i'm sick and tired of all the blame. we get what we pay for. if the democrats do not get out there and vote, we are going to get these done republicans -- these dumb republicans. host: jonathan allen, when they start negotiating for the next extension? guest: the problem is that they are not really negotiating. you will see the house pass something that's a hard line and the senate talks about passing something that's a hard line. eventually, they keep the government from shutting down. there has been some conversations between john boehner's staff and harry

reid's staff. we have not seen a lot of involvement from the white house. senate democrats are talking to each other behind closed doors about how angry they are about how the white house has not show its hand -- shown its hand. for the white house, it gives them the ability to side with the republicans at the end. there's a lot going on. i think the next of will be some level of engagement from the white house. i have to compliment you on your ability to keep a straight face when the caller was talking about the hypocrites in washington. host: here's a tweet. a lot there. we will go to kansas. david is a republican.

good morning. caller: my problem is that i do not ever see any thing on the news or anything about the 48,000 factories that have moved overseas from the united states. many of them are in china. many of them went over. cheap labor. we either need to get tariffs back or we need to get taxes. it's a no-brainer. host: david, a republican in kansas. i want to ask you about the issue of federal employees getting paid. will members of congress continue to get paid? guest: it depends on whether this bill from barbara boxer goes through. if it does go through, and i think there's a lot of indication that it likely will, members of congress would not get paid.

as it stands, i think they would continue to get paid and the president, as well. i don't think that would be affected by a short-term shutdown. there's an effort to make sure that does not happen. i think politicians are very aware. host: linda is a democrat in riverside, california. caller: good morning. the barbara boxer bill was objected to yesterday by tom coburn and it is not going to go through. congress does and will get paid during a government shutdown. their money does not come from appropriations. they always get paid during a government shutdown. host: linda, where did you read that? caller: that's what i was calling about. i read that in the library of congress. that is how it happens and that

is why they get paid during government shutdowns. billse barbara boxer's will not go through, because it is objected to by republicans, they will continue to get paid. all of congress, including the new republicans who have absolutely nothing on the line. they do not care about america. they care about getting paid. they are sleeping in their offices for crying out loud. they do not care about the people of the united states. host: jonathan allen? guest: the caller is right. congressional pay checks do not come out of the annual appropriations. there are a lot of reasons for that. one of the reasons for that is that there's a constitutional amendment that keeps congress from voting itself pay raises during the same congress. there is an automated pay system for members of congress that is attached to an index of other

items, including general inflation and how other federal workers' pay is going up. however, you could do it by legislation, such as barbara boxer's. it remains to be seen, what will happen in terms of'barbara s bill. host: do you know what the hold is about? guest: i have not talked to senator coburn's staff. my sense is that they are not dumb enough to take pay, if the government is shut down. host: mark, an independent in kentucky. go ahead. caller: they have said that the republican people have spoken and they put them in power. that cannot be true. a lot of the voters, the 18 to

34-year-olds did not vote. the above -- the eight years of bush, the reason we are in this quagmire, is because we were in a war with iraq that we should not have been in. that's why our deficit skyrocketed over the top. i think it's a shame that republicans will say the american people have spoken. people never got out and voted. that's my comment. i would like to hear what you have to say. guest: not voting is voting. it's making a decision. you have an opportunity to vote in this country at the age of 18 or older. if you do not show up to vote, there should be no complaint about what the government is doing. i'm guessing the collar and most c-span viewers are reliable voters -- the caller and most c- sp