in about 45 minutes, we will talk about federal spending priorities with democratic representative jim moran of virginia. then it representative daniel webster, a florida republican. then we will discuss the role and mission of nonprofit organizations with tim delaney, head of the national council of nonprofits. here is "washington journal." host: for the first part of "washington journal" we want to get your reaction to the supreme court decision declaring that the protests from the westboro baptist church out of kansas is protected free -- free speech. eight-one was the ruling. 202 is the area code for all of our numbers --

supreme court declares that fuel protests are free speech. we wanted to get your reaction to that. here is "the baltimore sun" frontpage. at the top story -- here is "the new york times" lead story. "the wall street journal" says -- and "the washington post" -- in the "usa today" article about the issue, they write this --

that is from "usa today" this morning. nearly every newspaper has an editorial and nearly every newspaper has an editorial supporting the supreme court decision. here is "the new york post." "free speech for fruitcakes." just two short paragraphs from this.

first caller is from california. robert on the republican line. what do you think? caller: i think it is a no- brainer as far as public speech and first amendment rights to freedom of speech. if it is on public property -- not on private cemetery glance -- then that that -- that is what the country is built on. you can protest a president coming to town. you can certainly give your views no matter how disgusting they are. i believe what these folks are doing is absolutely appalling. of but it is their right. and i think they will all vernon hell for it. host: houston, and texas. henry on the democrats' line. caller: i think it is a good decision. i think it is a fundamental right here in this country to have freedom of speech.

and they did the right thing. also i think it is the right thing to go out there on your motorcycle and surround those people and protect them from people like at westboro baptist church. that is my comment. host: the next caller is on our independent line from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. host: where have you been, mr. peterson? we have not heard from you forever. caller: we have been trying to get through for four months. host: we missed you. thought something maybe happens. caller: i told -- they would be worried about us because we have not called in the last three or four months. worried. host: good to hear your voice. you sound great. what do you think about the supreme court decision? caller: i am upset. i am ex-navy and it bothers me to see something like that. it really does. host: have you had a good

winter? caller: terrible. the worst -- we have been here 15 years, peter, and the worst winter we have ever had. host: welcome to the real world. [laughter] glad to hear from you guys. thank you for calling in and telling us your opinion about the supreme court. raleigh, north carolina. bill on the republican line. caller: i support the decision. it is upholding free speech. however, i am rather disappointed that president obama, since he decides to get down and the mud over certain issues of his liking, he will not come to the defense of the military young men and women in giving their lives to this country so people can have free speech. i would like to see him taking -- make a statement to the people, saying although i support exercising your first amendment right -- i would appreciate it and think it would be along the lines of stability

if you would cease and desist your code testing of these military families and give them the courtesy that they deserve for their young person that give their life for our country. but, as always, president obama will pick his projects, such as unions and socialism and everything else. i did not expect much coming from the white house on this issue. host: free-speech that is ugly, that is "the washington post" editorial. supreme court decides correctly. they conclude their editorial with this -- new york city. jack. a democrat.

caller: thank you for c-span. maybe they got it right as far as free-speech -- and i am not a lawyer. but they got it wrong as far as human decency. and i don't know how legally it can be done or if it is going to be considered in the near future a way for the supreme court or state court or lawyers to create some kind of an exception when it comes to some form of basic human decency, especially around someone's funeral. i would say this, lastly, i believe the supreme court got it was wrong with the citizens united case. i would like to see -- i know c- span has done its share to discuss it but i do not think it should be something that should be forgotten and it is something that should be brought about and discussed again on c-span. host: mike tweets in --

if you want to send a sweet, twitter.com/c-spanwj -- "the new york times" editorial.

randy, independent, in shreveport, louisiana. the supreme court decided the funeral protests from the westboro baptist church are free speech. what do you think? caller: i agree with the first amendment. they got it all wrong. they need to be in washington standing in front of the white house and the congress and waive those banners at them. they are the ones who sent the troops over there. and you got a communist in the white house and other communist in congress and everything. that is where the problem is right there. i thought they would send the troops home when obama got in the white house. look at what is it is doing. he is a puppet -- a communist puppet, and so are the rest of the people in the white house. host: new york city. mike on the republican line. talking about supreme court, funeral protests as free-speech. caller: i want to ask a simple question. are they protecting these people

being homosexual? why did protesting these people because they are going to war, period? what is it about? host: the lawyer for the westboro baptist church, daughter of reverend fred phelps was supposed to join us this morning. we have not been able to get a hold of her. what is your opinion about what the supreme court decided. caller: i do not have enough facts to make a decision or a judgment call. it seems like it is a broad opinion on the church with people protesting. i see people with a sign saying they did not like homosexuals or they did not like the war or what ever it is they don't like. i want to get more detail before i run outside with the ax and trying to burn these people down. i want more information. thank you for c-span. host: if you are interesting -- interested in knowing the westboro baptist church position on these issues, but -- website

is godhatesfags.com. kansas. mary lou. are you there? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i appreciate the fact the supreme court upheld the first amendment but having lived in kansas i know that what hateful things they have done. my grandchildren live in topeka and when a six-year-old girl says, mommy, why are they saying god hates? the other thing i wanted to say is the phelps want the publicity and they are certainly getting it now. and they will be so when other people for some little thing they have done. that is how they make money, to run around all over. host: thank you for calling in.

how far are you from topeka? caller: 2 1/2 hours. they were here not long ago protest a funeral. host: were there counter protests? caller: yes. the patriot guard surrounded the area of where they were having a vigil. they did not come to the funeral. host: thank you for calling in, mary lou. if you believe in the first and then that you cannot argue with this decision, as long as the protesters stay the distance set by the court. that is a tweet -- "usa today" editorial. a counter editorial by richard you bank, national commander of veterans of foreign wars of the united states. he writes that this decision should send a chilling message across america because it will only emboldened the reverend

fred phelps and followers to protest and a funeral with the effort -- whatever reason and without legal recourse. he concludes his opposition editorial by writing -- west virginia. iraq on the republican line. what do you think -- eric on the republican minority caller: i think they probably got it right and i hope the obama administration reads this opinion very carefully because they have been trying to shut down fox news for the last -- well, since he has been in office. host: how have they been trying to shut down fox news? caller: he is -- his communications director, the woman, she was on tv several times disparaging fox news and

telling how they are spreading propaganda. host: tie that into what we are talking about. caller: the fairness doctrine. are they trying to shut down some speech? trying to say that if you have one opinion you have to produce another opinion opposite of that. free-speech is something you just can't regulate. host: bruce is a democrat in frankfurt, ky. talking about 8-1 supreme court decision. caller: i think they got it all wrong. we don't have free speech. if the president or a congressman is making a speech and you try to interrupt, the secret service rushes you right out of there. i want to say i am an ex-marine, i served in the infantry and i

have an uncle was killed at omaha beach when he was 18 years old, he got his chest shot out by a german machine gun. and if i had a funeral for one of my family and these people came around, i guarantee you they would never come to another one. host: a viewer tweets in -- connecticut. margaret is an independent. caller: this group -- i would not even call them a church. they are so provocative. i have to admit i never saw about the supreme court because this is the third ruling that i have trouble with. i have seen these people interviewed on tv a couple of months ago and they said somebody asked a question, if it goes against you, would you continue what your doing, and they said, yes. they obviously have no respect for the law. i cannot believe they cannot be

prosecuted as a nuisance because you cannot have allowed a party without offending somebody and sending police to your property. i suppose because of this public property. i have real difficulty with it. i am getting on the opposite side of the supreme court, although the only deal in rulings -- individual cases. i have to admit, these people -- i think the irs should start looking into them because how do they get their money and how do they continue to exist because i really think they are treading a fine line when they say it is a church. host: chicago. george. democrat. caller: hello? host: we're listening. caller: y eah, i agree with the ruling of the court. i do not think you can -- just because some fringe wac job group decides they want to be extremely cruel, and i do not

think he could trample the first amendment because of that. but i want to echo the earlier caller from new york. of the supreme court got it right this time. you cannot really give these guys and to much publicity because they are a fringe group. the majority of this country does not believe that these guys are a fringe group and a bunch of black jobs. the citizens united decision they got wrong -- something i hope republicans and democrats could agree on as well. host: on october 7 of last year , right after the supreme court arguments, margie phelps was on this program. so if you go to the c-span archives and type in march phelps or october 7, 2010, you can watch the interview you did with her at that point.

in other news. from the 11th -- politico this morning, dems support biden's budget role. that is from the politico this morning. this is from "roll call" this morning. gop leaders poised to balk by then's budget meeting. -- buck biden's budget meeting.

boehner hit the gas. this is from "the hill."

that is a little look at what is going on with the budget. one of the many budget processes that are working their way through capitol hill right now. joining us now from topeka, kansas, is margie phelps, a daughter of fred phelps, the lawyer who argued the case in front of the supreme court. we have been talking about the case in this morning with our callers. one of the things that stuck out is that there was room in the supreme court decision -- or language in the supreme court decision that seemed to indicate that states could further regulate your activity. do you agree with that interpretation, and if so, do you have plans to prevent that are combat that? >> well, i think there is language that hypothetically

that -- they can. there is also language that indicates it has to be very narrow, not content-based and not impacting speech on public issues and they can no longer avail themselves of the argument that people going into a funeral are a captive audience comparable to a person in their home. since all of these laws are around the state having been based upon the claim there is a captive audience, the claim that this is a private event and therefore speech is on private matters, those laws are going to fail. in -- the missouri and nebraska laws are currently in front of the eighth circuit. in fact, i'd just finished briefing but nebraskas and get -- law last week. i know those of the audience they asserted and all of the audience they are asserting have been at -- rejected by the supreme court.

host: when you say you just finished briefing the nebraska law committee argued in front of their supreme court or you will be arguing in front of the supreme court? caller: the eighth -- guest: the eighth circuit -- probably not getting the two cases in the same time, here between april or may. host: when is your next year or protest plan, can you tell us? guest: i am sure it is within days. we have them every couple of days. host: could you remain on the line and little while and take some callers? guest: i would be happy. caller: the next call is from bellaire, california. republican. talking about the supreme court decision, and margie phelps, the lawyer who argued the case for the westboro baptist church is also with us. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span, peter.

good morning, and i would like to start off by saying that i much appreciate c-span for everything that they do. they are a perfect forum as far as media privilege on the first. you guys are very unbiased. you listen to all opinions. you just had a person in criticizing the president of the united states on air. everything is done professionally and with respect and i appreciate c-span. what i do not appreciate is what is happening outside of these funerals. i think it is disgusting but it is their right. that is what this country is founded on, is for opinion and opportunity to express that opinion. and, peter, i have a question for you. you never really hear from

anchors -- what is your unbiased opinion? it's good you still will not hear from the anchor. margie phelps, is that anything about the case that tatum from bel-air, california, said? guest: he does not know what goes on outside of the funerals. what prompted us to start going hundreds of feet away is the fact that the funerals are used as the occasion for massive patriotic pep rallies. no one is disgusted about that. the politicians, the media, the military, the veterans, they all use the occasion of that funeral to stand outside and check and play music -- chant and play music. pimp for votes, viewers or

listeneers. veterans, and bring their complaints about how they were treated at the end of the vietnam war. revving the motorcycles. all kinds of commotion and politicizing. and because we said, well, now, they turn that into a massive public platforms and they say that god is blessed america -- we went to the public platform to say, yoo hoo, it is a curse to have the -- fruit of your nation coming back in little pieces. that is not a blessing from god. he does not really know what goes on outside of these funerals, and therefore it not in a position to be disgusted about. what he means is he is disgusted about our viewpoint. nobody wants us to say anywhere that soldiers are dying for your sins.

host: could you remind our viewers who were some of the folks or organizations that signed amicus briefs on behalf of your case? guest: won by a couple of dozen media organizations. one by a group of first amendment scholars, professors. there was one by the aclu, american liberty council -- that group out of -- jerry falwell started up. there were a few others that are just escaping me right now. host: front royal, virginia. sunday, independent line but talking about the supreme court decision yesterday about the approach testing and free speech. caller: thank you for taking my caller -- call. they are not true baptists.

i agree with the supreme court for letting them demonstrate, but they should be away from the funeral, they should not harass the people. i am thankful that the supreme court could show how stupid they are. guest: the only way the father knew we were present -- the only place the father saw the signs were on the tv. he could never see the pictures. he saw a bunch of other p icketers from other groups. but the record is clear and the supreme court said as much, the only time he saw the sign was on tv later. so, that would not satisfy you, sir, and that did not satisfy this man. again. what this is about is content.

and the hypocrisy of all of the rhetoric in this country. when we go around this world and pretend we are the great champions of liberty. while you try to squash like a bug in little church in the middle of the country. there is no place where we can say this dissenting view that would satisfy people. but if your first amendment does not protect the dissenting view that you all hate, it is not worth the paper it is written on and this is not a constitutional democracy in this nation. so, stop fighting back. host: margie phelps, what was your view about justice and leto's descends in this case? -- justice alito. guest: he just lost the battle. he did the same thing as the stevens case. he has unemotional, rhetorical reaction similar to your callers. his job was to rise above that.

he didn't. host: this e-mail from steve in the illinois, margie phelps. guest: if i had a penny for every time i have heard that. here is my answer. first of all, the lord god of eternity is keeping this church. the bill be betting any rent money on anyone in this church dying before christ returns -- don't be betting any rent money. if that were to happen, there had better be gridlock on all high rate -- highways and roads, into topeka, kansas. everybody in this country had better come to pick it outside

of that funeral. you have been promising its, and we would want and expect nothing less. host: this tweet -- >> caller with margie phelps from westboro baptist church -- host: next call from emporia, kansas. caller: good morning,. . i really did not have anything to say to margie phelps but i do believe that the supreme court got it right. i believe their views are abhorrence but i know for the rest of us, free-speech is really the foundation of our republic. i write in our local rag here occasionally and i run counter to the prevailing thought.

sometimes provocative, sometimes trying to be provocative. i got a response from somebody saying i am a vile person and that is what free-speech needs to be about. it needs to be protected. as for the people at westboro. they came here to emporia once, and i think people just make them irrelevant, if people did not just upset, they just went out about it and people did what folks normally do. the comfort their neighbors, the comfort those who are grieving, and so on, and so forth. that is the ethic that needs to prevail. host: the next call, taught from nevada, missouri -- todd. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for marjorie. i would like to know the difference between the kkk and the hate speech that they put out and have been restricted from demonstrating. guest: i got a question.

first of all, the kk is not restricted. there is a supreme court law on that group. as for the difference. there are many. number one, they are not scripture early ground and we are -- scripture-ground. their message is about human hate which is a sin, ours is about the perfect hatred of god and has nothing to do with any human hate. silicon prairie. we kindly warn our neighbor. no. 3 -- they like the power to that call themselves anonymous hide behind masks and she'd say because their cause is not knowable. it is not noble, righteous, or bible-based. we, on the other hand, are an open book to this nation. host: margie phelps. for lack of the better word --

can outsiders attend your church? guest: they do regularly. every sunday. this past weekend we had folks here from 5 different states visiting. some of whom have been coming four weeks. and we had a crew from a program comparable to our "60 minutes" from spain. host: what if an open a homosexual attended church? guest: they do and they have. anybody can come hear the preaching. nobody can be a member sitting at the table, taking the lord's supper unless they are walking orderly. and have made a profession of faith. it is very simple. that is baptist 101. if anybody really in this nation do what john the baptist preacher.

you cannot be a practicing homosexual and be a member of the church, nor can you be a practicing for decatur, nor can you be divorced and remarried -- practicing fornicator. that is the rb because this nation have over 2 million false profits calling themselves preachers and over 200,000 so- called houses of worship telling everybody, with the help of the media, that it is ok to be gay, you can change your sex partner more than you change your socks and you can be divorced and remarried and not just be in the pew, but be in the pulpit and that is why this nation is in business. host: do you see yourself back at the supreme court arguing another case? guest: well, if the lord

tarries, and he probably will not very much, but if he does, there is a good chance some of these laws will make their way up there. host: the next call -- if we can give you a few more minutes. pennsylvania. michael, a democrat. caller: i would like to thank c- span for taking my call. and i believe that the supreme court has gotten it right because if they had when the of the way, the people who are protesting out in wisconsin, the conservatives would have reason to stop them from protesting. so, i believe the supreme court has got it right. we live in america. god bless america. host: you see any similarities between what is going on in wisconsin and other state capitals and what the westboro baptist church does? guest: well, the only similarity is they are both protected activities. the major dissimilarity -- i

told the supreme court -- we do not do like some groups up in your grill picketing. that was the issue. you cannot be a captive audience without someone with a picket sign or some other form of advocating communication being up in your grill. no matter what your state of vulnerability may or not be. i had to send a note to -- a description of wisconsin and remind them that that is up in your grill picketing. we did not do that. we do not camp out in the state house. host: time for two more calls for our guest, margie phelps, from the westboro baptist church. topeka, kansas. caller: how are you this morning? host: good. caller: i have -- for as long as they have been around.

hello? host: we are listening. caller: there are a lot of things i did not agree -- as long as somebody wants to do whatever they want to do and leave me out of it and everybody else out of it, i don't really care. but i know one thing -- and i have lost friends of this thing -- one thing i will say. they pick it. i have been around them a lot. not to support their group, but just watching. i have never seen them carry a gun when they are picketing. . have never seen them violenct and i have seen a lot of people violent against them. they have been very peaceful. and i am so glad the supreme court -- because i was worried the supreme court would shut them down. like in minnesota and other

places -- the whole thing would be going down a tube. even though i did not agree with what they are saying, i always believe that they have a right as long as it is peaceful. host: go ahead, charlie, we got your point. guest: margie phelps. a couple of things. of course, he is right. we did not carry any kind of weapon and we never will. i noticed on yesterday's evening news that the father who brought this lawsuit told katie couric that now there was going to be blood in the streets and the supreme court was going to be the blame. so he has gone to be ostensible lover of his government to an anarchist. that is what happens when you are not on the right side. with all the respect to the

caller, and i appreciate his comments, but that notion of live and let live while the neighbor is sitting his way to hell is exactly what you are not supposed to do and exactly what the bible is talking about when it says love thy neighbor. and we get flung an hour phase 100 times a day, love thy neighbor. you love your neighbor by warning him not to sit in and go to. not live and let live. host: margie phelps -- hopefully you will make a law argument out of this question. what is the difference between a neighbor living his or her own life as he or she chooses and your right to do what you do? guest: i will make that a law argument because i already told you what the bible says about that. when you fulfill that bible admonition you did not do it by

going and piling up on the front porch -- that is not the bible way and the law does not want you doing that. that is what captive audience is all about. nor are we trying to convert to anybody. we did not hold any hearts in our hands. what we are doing is to going out to public right of ways, speaking to this nation, a nation of neighbors about their policies of sin. that, as the supreme court says, is quintessential public issue speech and when you go joint that debate, i do not care whether you are an official, a famous person, or an unknown person, when you join that debate, you do not get to control the dialogue by litigating one of you point out of existence. host: the last call from our

guest market phelps comes from denver, pennsylvania, john on our republican line. caller: good morning. host: you got to turn down that volume and go ahead and make the statement. caller: good morning. my name is john. i am a u.s. navy veteran. i ever present all veterans -- in a what, we have to stop giving these people so much attention, ok? and then they hide behind god and all of his laws. stop being phony, ok? i live my life. i did not hurt anybody, ok, and i can never going to hurt anybody. in a what? what a shame? host: if you could hold on for just a second. we will let john finish. caller: one minute, please. it is a shame our politicians to not have enough common sense that they cannot come up with a law that will prevent these idiot people from protesting

against people who died for the preservation of what they get to do to begin with. if it's kotite in the first amended to this argument. -- tie in the first amendment. caller: i understand freedom of speech is first amendment. i cannot come over here and say you are a horrible person and use all kinds of language and expect not have any consequence. that is what the westboro church -- they need to have consequences. and i prayed to god that god brings the wrath right down on them and hope some sick. in this country takes them out. thank you very much. guest: here is the question i will take. is what he just described what we experience on the streets every day out of the veterans who an allegedly fought for the right of free speech -- the answer is, no. what we experience out of the

veterans is filth coming out of their mouth. pure violence. more violent than any group you dealt with on the street and they are illiterate about the constitution that they claim to uphold. those suckers have less -- list of exceptions to the first and then it that would soak -- choke a horse. blooming, violent hypocrites this nation has for its heroes. he does not give a rat's back aside for the constitution. he has idols -- uniforms, dead bodies, and flags and he would kill any american who did not bowed down and worship those idols. host: of people want to learn what the westboro baptist church, is a website question of guest:godhatesfags.com and

follow me on twitter at margie phelps. host: the lawyer for the westboro baptist church, the daughter of reverend fred phelps. thank you for being on "washington journal." we will take a few more calls about this issue and then congressman jim ran will be here, we will talk about budgeting matters. there are some articles i want to get through in case you might be interested in some other news going on. this is from the huffington post this morning. john edwards hires greg greg in endeavored to ward off indictments. president barack obama's former lawyer has signed on to help john edwards had he tries to ward off criminal indictments over payments to his ex mistress. this was first reported by npr. this is from "washington journal" this morning. ohio senate votes to restrict public unions. nearly votes to approve a sweeping bill that would narrow

the power of public employee units to negotiate contracts. the vote came as union supporters protested the measure for a second day on the grounds of the statehouse in columbus. gop-sponsored bill passed the senate 17-16. six republicans voting against it. it now goes to the house in ohio where it is expected to pass and then to the best of republican governor john kasich, who is expected to sign it. ohio republicans revise the bill to restore collective bargaining on the issues of wages, hours, and certain conditions but also extended an existing ban on strikes to include teachers and a lot binding arbitration, giving the final say in contract disputes to government. that is from "washington journal" this morning. lead story of "the financial times" --

st. louis, missouri. james, on the independent line. talking about the supreme court decision about funeral protests and free-speech. caller: i wish you could have had margie on. i think the words she uses and her manner -- i hate when people put hate of religion. she mentions john the baptist. ok, talk about john baptist, but he was a follower of jesus and what would jesus do. he who is without sin throw the first phone. i am pretty sure if you look deep enough into the closets of those nuts -- and i will go ahead and throw my stone -- i did not think they are any more pious, do not think fred phelps

would ever be the pope and it is about them -- when they went to hide park in chicago. it is about sewing, the money. his followers are ridiculed by society -- it will be on him. host: the lead story in "the washington times" this morning. wikileaks source aiding enemy. death penalty will not be s ought.

that is from "the washington times" this morning, as is this article announcing that president call the roll in from mexico will be visiting the white house thursday -- president calderon. sitting relations will be at the top of the agenda. of course, today is thursday. last call. los angeles. clint, a republican line. caller: i just wanted to say i am absolutely appalled by that woman, the hate speech, the

nazi-esque views. if somebody wants to live their life as they see fit, that is their god-given right. i think has to be -- i believe in the first amendment. i believe in free speech. but i think this lady does not deserve that respect. to live under the flag, to live in this country, and to disrespect the armed forces that fought for this country for years, and here she has bad mouth -- i think the separation of church and state has to come into this, hate speech has to come into this. i did not think she deserves the right. you are telling me this lady is arguing in front of our supreme court? thank you. host: clinton in los angeles. that will be the end of our first segment of this morning. we have a couple of congressmen coming up. representative dan webster is a

republican from florida, a freshman. he beat allen gray said in the 2010 election and he will be here in about 45 and sent -- minutes. but coming up next, longtime democratic congressman, member of the appropriations committee, jim moran, democrat of virginia. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> over 1000 middle and high school students entered this year's studentcam documentary competition. the scene -- washington, d.c., through my lens. it was big deal will be announced wednesday morning, march 9, and we will stream all the winning videos at studentcam.org. >> this weekend on book tv on c- span2, on "after words, what

boxer hurricane carter spent 20 years in prison wrongly confuse -- accused a triple murder. we will discuss this with journalist juan williams. and scott brown on his troubled childhood and his rise as a national political figure. look for scheduling information act booktv.org and more details about the live "in depth" with paulina maier. >> there is a new way to get a concise review of the day's events. it is washington today on c-span radio. every weekday we will take you to capitol hill, the white house, and everywhere news is happening. we will also talk to experts, the politicians, and a journalist as you put today's event into perspective. the stories that matter to you the most, every weekday, 5-7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span reappeared you can listen in the washington-baltimore area at 90.1 fm and nationwide on xm

satellite or you could go on line at c-span.org and also available as an iphone app and you can download it every evening as a c-span podcast. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman jim moran was first elected in 1990. he is a democrat from virginia and he represents the alexandria and arlington areas right across the river in the washington suburbs. congressman, correctly we have a -- the government is on for another two weeks. we have been here before, haven't we? guest: i have never seen it this bad, peter, for congress not to have passed and the appropriation bills and now to threaten a shutdown of the entire government without any clear resolution and then to put all of its efforts into simply

extending it for two weeks. that is nowhere to run the government. i think congress should be embarrassed and the american people should really reflect upon the kind of leadership of the elected in november frankly. host: do you foresee a potential government shutdown in two weeks? guest: it is entirely possible. i know both sides will further -- both offer further concessions. but we are basically at in india -- ideological impasse. it is not just the cuts. there are dozens of legislative changes included in this continuing resolution that go to the heart of what government is all about. most of them are directed at the environment, making sure the environmental protection agency can't regulate the clean air and clean water and then it's. -- amendments. they also go at a financial- services industry. the attempt to require reporting

and get a hand on the data that is necessary to prevent another financial collapse. of the money would be taken from it as easy's ability to do that. -- the money would be taken from the s e c's ability to do that. other issues that have nothing to do with spending. making sure that planned parenthood organization cannot receive one dime from the federal government for anything, including breast cancer screenings, mammograms, screens for cervical cancer. one organization cannot get any money. those are not things that should be in appropriations bills and that is one of the reasons why it is going to be very difficult to get past the impasse. it is a whole ideological battle to be fought out on the house floor. host: vice-president joe biden will be coming to capitol hill to meet on the budget impasse.

would be successful? guest: some of the republican leaders have said they are not sure whether they are even going to show up for the meeting. it should be successful. the vice president i think will be in a compromiser removed. he is an easy guy to get along with. he does not generate any kind of acrimony. i would think that this is a good shot that the white house has taken to reach some kind of resolution. but we are dealing with 87 new republican freshmen in the house that have no interest in the compromise, that are here on a mission. in many ways, that mission is to shut down the government because they feel that the federal government, and to some extent, state governments, are playing much too large a role in people's lives. host: this headline in the

politico. by the way, we would get to calls and a minute. numbers are on the screen /political affiliation. the gao reports medicare is losing $48 billion in essentially waste, fraud, and abuse. at what point did -- is it time to reform entitlements, and if so, how do we do it? guest: i think we need to look at entitlements, but particularly at medicare. security has a problem, 77 million baby boomers like myself near or at retirement age but it is medicare will have the most serious financing problems. social security, we could at least get through 2037 or so. medicare needs to be substantially reformed in the way that reid -- we reimburse. for example, when we reimburse on the basis of the number of services provided -- not

necessarily the outcome. we are not paying the providers of medical care for results. we are paying them to go through a particular process. and that generates an industry in some cases that provide a lot of repetitive services, services that will be repeated over and over again and services that are not necessarily making the public healthier. the health care reform act and tended to get at that. there are a lot of reforms. but they take time to implement. most of them will not be implemented until about 2014. but we've got to change this. it does not make sense that the united states is paying twice as much as any other country in the world, and yet we did not live as long. we are not as healthy a population. i think large part is the way in

which we reimburse for health care. not focusing, as i say, on results as much as simply how often you go through certain motions of providing medical care that may or may not be the most effective way. host: as a longtime member of the appropriations committee, former subcommittee chair, now a ranking member -- has the appropriation committees power been curtailed in this last round of budget negotiations, the banning of the year marks -- earmarks. guest: no. and have to say -- and have to be as candid as possible -- the appropriators are going to be okay because we know people in agencies and so on. we will continue to do the best job we can for the country, and to some extent, for our congressional districts, because that is our job as well. but i feel quite strongly that

the constitutional -- the right -- writers of the constitution knew what they were doing when they give the powers of the purse to the congress. ironically, what the other party, the republican party has said, and of course, president obama is going to agree, let us get all that power to the president. let us that the president to all of the earmarks. i was a budget officer in the nixon administration. every dollar was earmarked. it is a question of just who does the earmarking. it seems to me everyone would be better off if congress took back into program will and distributed funds and the way that is in the best interest of the now we are giving all the power over to the executive branch, and obviously president obama thinks it is a great thing. that may work for a democrat while the democrat is in the

white house, but things change. and i do not think it is healthy. as an appropriate year, we will be ok, but i do not think the country is best served by this attitude about your marks and about the spending in areas where most people have no real idea about the benefits of particular programs. they see a title, dollar amount, and let's cut it by 50%, 80%. that is no way to run a government. host: gary duncan tweets in. guest: sure, i do have a lot of nerve. i do not mind that accusation, but the house was more than prepared to pass the budget. we could not get it through the senate because of the

requirement that you have to have 60 votes on a lot of this. i think we ran into a lot of people who felt we would be better off pleading until the next administration. it is too bad. the democrats were in power and did not get the appropriation bills done. it is not a bad comments. it is an appropriate one. host: big guns tweets in -- guest: i think he is largely right. we have had two massive tax cuts that would they were the past, but the party in power new they could not be sustained, so there were supposed to expire this

year. more political reasons than fiscally reasons they did not expire. they were never affordable. we never cut the amount of money that the loss of revenue that these tax represented in terms of loss of revenue. pop a bush or whatever you want to refer to him -- papa bush, or whenever you want to refer to him, understood to have to balance it. he may not have gone reelected because of that, but when president clinton came in he took that mantra and that is how he handled the budget. handed over a projected surplus of 5.6 trillion dollars to bush. the first thing that was done

was to cut taxes. well, with a surplus, let's give it all back. we understood that the baby boomers were going to retire. we need to use the surplus to pay off our debt so the children did not to pay for our retirement and medical costs. we took 3.5 trillion dollars off the table, never made it up, and then we start two wars. the afghan war will be 250 billion. the iraq war was over two trillion dollars. you throw it all win, and then you have the financial crisis on wall street because of the excessive wagering on the part of financial-services firms, and there is your recession. this is a manufactured situation. we do not have to be in this situation.

this is policy, and policy that i do not think is responsible. a large part of the congress decided this benefits us in the short-term politically, but in the long-run it is devastating to our children and grandchildren. that is why we are in the situation we're in. i think he is quite right. host: jake is a democrat from ohio joining us. caller: thank you for having me. in hr1, the funding was a decrease greatly from 450 million to $225 million. what this decrease funding -- with this decreased funding, i do not think enough money will fund the great lakes region.

week havoc on the $7n t billion fishing industry. this could be potentially very devastating. guest: did he say he was going to ohio state? host: i think he is going to ohio state. guest: wherever you are from, they should be very proud of you. these asian carp are causing havoc to the industry of cities around the great lakes. and yet the money that was devoted to restoring the great lakes, which will have enormous economic consequences, is being cut along with the money to the

chesapeake bay. all of the money to restore the chesapeake bay was wiped out in hr1. you are absolutely right, clean water, getting the pollution out of the drinking water has a big economic consequences. it is penny wise and pound foolish to be cutting bees just when the economy needs the boost that ohio and illinois and indiana, all of the midwestern states, need right now. to a large extent they are dependent upon them. you are right on. you're absolutely right. it cuts like this -- cuts like this to save a few million of the time will cost us billions to the economy in the long-run.

host: dave cover republican from maine. caller: your speaker starts read out by saying -- right out by saying they should be ashamed because they did not pass the new freshmen. then he says we could not get the 60 votes. may be that is when you should have gone back to the table and try to renegotiate. you are part of the problem. i think they said you have been in office since the 1990's. 20 years, you are part of the problem. it is people like you, the smooth talker. you are not for the people, your for yourself. you are greedy. you have been there 20 years. you should only be there eight

years. after eight years, get out, because it is your smooth talking -- host: we got the point. let's get a response. guest: i appreciate you referring to me as a smooth talker. i have never thought of myself as being very smooth. i have been in the congress for 20 years now, and i have seen some very strong economies. the economy during the 1990's that generated 23 million new jobs, that generated a surplus but got appropriation bills passed on time and provided more after tax money to the people at the highest level of taxation than at any time in american history. i have seen this country work and see how the appropriations process should work, and i would

love to see smooth sailing ahead so that i could retire and go back to being a stockbroker and make a lot more money and live an easier life. these issues are so important, that is why i am here this morning sharing a cup a copy with you, sir. host: if the government shuts down and a couple of weeks, how would it affect your district in arlington? guest: i have 120,000 people who work for the federal government in my district, and probably more that work for private contractors depending on the government. they would be the first ones laid off, so obviously this is very important to me, but we have to take a national perspective. i was just talking to a large number of that yesterday. their principal interest is not just keeping their pay going,

they are willing to accept some sacrifice as long as we do not take a meat ax approach to the federal government. a government they have devoted their lives to. i talked to a couple hundred yesterday, and everybody that i could see and have had a chance to talk to individually, these are well-educated people that in a strong economy would be making at least 30%, in some cases twice as much as they are getting in the civil service, but they believe in this government as i do. but this is a tough time for anyone that believes in the balance between the public and private sector. clearly public sector is being made the scapegoat really. i do not think it is fair or accurate. host: is there a chance that a cr could be passed that could

fund the government through september? guest: sure. i think the democrats are willing to make reasonable conseqsacrifices. we could probably come up with another 9 billion or so that would come out to $50 billion, half of what the republicans said they wanted to cut from the budget. we could do that. we would have to take some from defense. they do not want to take any from defense. we think this budget is a strong budget. it is support to the welfare of the country. we are willing to make sacrifices, but it needs to be in a spirit of compromise. politick should be the art of compromise. they have very strongly-held views. -- politics should be the art of

compromise. when you have a closed-minded ideology that says all government is wrong and they come into our room not having had the experiences of seeing government work, i think we're going to have a difficult time in reaching compromise. joe biden knows what he is doing. he knows capitol hill and knows how important these programs are, but he is also fiscally responsible. the president knows that, and that is why he is here. if anyone can pull this off, i think he can. but i do not know that he can. host: san diego, michael. independent line. caller: good morning. i respect your opinion, but in every situation there is a tipping point. the point of no return.

i understand the yearly deficit and understand where 14 trillion dollars in debt, but we always hear about these words "unfunded liabilities." can you please explain what unfunded liabilities are, and have we reached the breaking point where we cannot recover from the situation that we're in? unfunded liabilities. thank you. guest: thank you. that is a very important issue. institute has madest t this a particular issue. i appreciate the fact that they have. we have private-sector and public-sector unfunded liabilities that are very serious. most of them deal with demographics. when our soldiers came back from world war ii, they had children

and have a lot of children. -- had a lot of children. hort of this court cou children, and they have lived a great life, but are now ready to retire. we're going to be far more demanding of good medical care in good financial assistance and the like. that cost money. when my father was working, there were about 20 workers for every retiree. when i retire, there will only be 3.5 workers for every retiree, and it will continue to get worse. that is an unfunded liability. i think we should put money aside. that is why i referenced earlier the policy that we had in the late 1990's would we

generated a substantial surplus , 5.6 trillion projected surplus. we said let's not take that off the table, and give ourselves this to put aside so the grandchildren do not have to do that. then we would not have had the unfunded liabilities. it would not have been such an enormous burden to our children. americans to make decisions based on how it would affect the generation to come, we have trouble making decisions that the walt more than seven months at a time. that is our problem. that is why we have the unfunded liability. we have in the private sector as well. we promised in order to recruit and train the best people, we would give them generous pension plans. whether it be in the executive branch or among organized labor. they get generous plans.

that arethe plantwss for and that try to come and try to compete. those plans have to be paid for, and to a large extent they are not here ye. at some point we have to start saving more in spending last. host: a tweet for you. well, for one thing you have to have legislation to determine how you are going to achieve such a cut. if it was against mandatory spending, we're talking about a lot of money. it is against non-security discretionary spending, you're only talking 12% of the budget, and 3% of gdp. that is not enough.

the big money is in mandatory spending, but if you're going to do that, you cannot reduce everybody social security paycheck there when to get every month. many of these people are living entirely on the social security payment. that has to be well considered. it has to be a piece of legislation. this cannot be considered at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning with 10 minutes of debate. it has to be carefully considered. eventually we will probably have to reduce all of our spending, but we should do it in a thoughtful way. the other thing, if you're going youake it against the fencdefe, have to weigh what you're going to cut back very carefully. host: jack, st. louis. on the republican line. please go ahead with your comment. caller: thank you. i hope there is a government

shutdown and philosophical discussion of what our government needs to do for the people. i do not think our current administration is doing anything that is constitutionally legal for most of their programs. if you eliminated all of that, there would be a lot more money. the unfunded liabilities, i am sorry, they made that promises and we all need to cut. we're seeing the demise of the american experiment, as i grew up with it, because the jobs have all left and everything is different. it is a world economy. unless you talk about the good time in the 1990's, it is irrelevant. host: he hopes for a government shutdown. if we can start there. guest: i appreciate the fact you are republican and republican party has contributed in a very

positive way throughout history to the strength of our economy and the stability of our society, but to suggest that everything the executive branch is doing is unconstitutional is just not to early rational. i do not think it is particularly rational to suggest we would be better off shutting down the government. people would then begin to realize how important the government is to their daily lives. it is not just medicare for coverage of their health expenses, social security provisions so that people can continue to live in their apartments or whatever. it is the ability to know that we are being kept secure through a strong military.

a law enforcement system. the kinds of schools that will produce a work force that will enable us to compete in the 21st century global economy. it is the roads. most of the road money we take for granted. that is that from monday -- that is but rolfederal money. same thing with so much of the infrastructure. the fact that we a clean water and clean air, that this federal money. to suggest that government should shut down as a result of the problems, i think it is too simplistic. i do appreciate the fact you listen to c-span and are engaged in the debate. host: you are on with jim moran. a democrat from virginia. caller: life, liberty, and the

pursuit of happiness. what we need is clean air, clean water, and proper food, and that is not to be compromised. look at the misery from savings and loans, enron, oil spills. the hypocrisy i keep hearing is government and socialism. i think government is socialism. even at the town level. thank you very much. guest: thank you for your comment. there is an underlying issue that i think is being played out in less general ways on the house floor, but i think it largely comes down to a divided on how we use in take advantage of the enormous resources of

this country. we now have a larger disparity between the very wealthy and middle-class then we have ever had since the times of the great depression. for example, the top 1%. they have made about two-thirds of the income growth over the last decade. they control about a quarter of all of the actual income, and they have half of the wealth of this country. iwe see across the world today and throughout history in the past that any time when you lose the middle class, you lose the strength of the economy and the society. warren buffett has suggested that our tax code does not make a whole lot of sense when he pays a lower tax rate than his

secretary. he lives off the wealthy has accumulated -- wealth he has accumulated. today the working class, if you will, has been much greater productivity from their work, but less compensation. the median income went down over the last decade. that is why they had to borrow so much to maintain their home and automobile and standard of living. this is really that ecological issue we are working with. -- the ideological issue we are working with. when you have the 15% tax base, that tells us it is too low. when you go over 23%, you create inflation if the last too long. but under 18%, you never have a

great economy. that is your physical infrastructure, communication system, and your human infrastructure. training,tion, a drjob research and development that is spun off to the private sector. we need that balance. we do not have that balance now. that is why i think to some extent this financial crisis is a bit manufactured. there was a planned 30 years ago, which meant stop the beast. we can cut revenue so low that there is a fiscal crisis, that will give us the opportunity, some would say the excuse, to cut domestic discretionary spending. that is exactly what we did all last week for the hundreds of amendments all designed for discretionary spending, going at

12% of the budget that is designed to build the roads, public transit, to educate the work force, provide research and development, but also to reach a helping hand to those that are less fortunate in our society and make it a more inclusive society. that is what we are fighting today. i frankly think we have lost the balance we need. the middle class is suffering. the top 25 hedge fund managers all made more than $1 billion in income last year. most of them paid a lower tax rate than the middle class people pay, because they're not paying at an income level necessarily. it is capital gains and dividend rates. that is a serious problem. too much wealth its consecrated among -- is concentrated among

too few people. we are playing it out in debating it on host 4 and senate. -- we are playing it out and debating it on the house floor and senate. host: miami, fla. republican, you are on the air. go ahead. caller: president obama offer the earlier 5% cut across the board. i think that is the way to go, because that would solve a lot of the partisan, rhetoric, waste of time. if he proposed it, why hasn't he re-proposed it?

that will pass without any problem. guest: i think that is too simplistic to be responsible. we should do better than cut 5% across the board. that is the easiest route, but certainly not responsible. doctors are not going to take 5% from any part of your body. you focused on where the surgery needs to be focused so that you can heal the whole body. a lot of our spending is appropriate and at the level that is necessary. some levels are not as necessary as others, and that is where we should take a surgical approach to cutting spending. the president's budget cuts non-defense discretionary t domestic spending.

secretary gates has done a terrific job in finding areas to cut unneeded weapons programs and the like. we are elected to use our best judgment. anyone could come in and take 5% across the board, but i do not think that is really what is in the best interest of the american people. we need to look at each individual program and make sure it is operating most efficiently and effectively that is consistent with the nation's priorities and cut accordingly, knowing that we cannot afford to do all we would like to do. a lot of things are want to have to be discarded. a lot of things that are good things to do, but you can opt for them or do not have the money, we cannot do it today. -- but if you cannot afford them or do not have the money, we cannot do it today. in addressing people with

cancer, we will save money and a whole lot of heartache and suffering, should we cut out the research and technology that enables us to compete around the world? should we cut out the money that enables us to develop a more sustainable source of energy? i do not think so. i think we need to figure out what our priorities are and to spend in a more responsible way, but i know there are a lot of simplistic solutions, most of which falls short of fulfilling our responsibility. host: last call is from carmichael, pennsylvania. michael. caller: i was curious how congress can justify extending the tax breaks to the rich, but at the same time taking away heat in the wintertime?

if you look at the cuts, that is what they're doing. how can you justify that morally? the cold war ended almost 30 years ago. why do we have the military in place in germany? we do not need it there. that is one way to save money, closing unneeded bases around the world. guest: we were off last week, but we had conversations on every one of these issues. we were on the floor until 2:00 in the morning. many of these issues, i do not blame you for not seeing the debate. it was held in the early morning hours, but every one of these issues was debated. my side, and apparently your side, lost. i happen to agree with you. it is not just the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy.

i do think a strong argument can be made that you do not necessarily need to renew tax cuts that give an average of over 100 dozen dollars per year to people making more than $1 million. think a strong argumenton can be made that you do not necessarily need to renew tax cuts that give an average of over $100,000 per year to people making more than $1 million. we do not need that. we are making lots of money right now, but nevertheless we cannot get rid of the subsidy. the same thing in other subsidies for extraction agencies. we still charge $2.50 per acre. these are mostly foreign firms

that are taking out minerals. there is a lot of things that we could do that would save money. we have a number of agricultural subsidies debated. we lost them. as the american people get more involved in understand there are areas we could save money, that we could tax in what i think would be a more rational, equitable basis we could raise revenue and cut spending. lveable situation we face. i do think it involves much more part on behalf of the american people. host: republican czar tweets in -- two final questions before we

go. we believe that one go. you have been in congress for the same amount of time as speaker john boehner, so what is your view? guest: he is a good person. i think at heart he would like to be back in ohio running a business, but the circumstances put him in the political realm. i think he is relatively moderate, but conservative, and that is because he came from a conservative environment. his family was democrats. he is more comfortable with the republican philosophy. at heart he wants to move forward. i think he is willing to compromise on issues, but he is now representing the republican majority, which i think is more conservative and to some extent close minded than he himself is.

i do not think he is the problem. he has to give voice to the majority of the people, particularly the 87 new republicans that were brought in. he has offered ideas and suggestions that would get us out of this problem, and they have been rejected by the court's conservative element in his party. -- by the core conservative element in his party. he has a terribly important role right now. i do not think he ever had the ambition to be speaker, but now that he is, he will do as good as he can. i doubt he sees much light at the end of the tunnel, but let me talk about the fact that i do not think john is the problem. to some extent, he has a tiger by the tail situation. i think he represents his

constituency quite well. he represents the broad band of midwestern relatively conservative policy. he is moderate on social policy. we need people like him in the congress. from my own point of view, i insh there was more ballasance the congress today. kaine run?tim guest: i hope so. i think he would be a great addition to the united states senate or to the cabinet. it is his call. i expected to make an announcement pretty soon. if he does not run, i think there are some very good people. tom ella has won in a very conservative part in the commonwealth of virginia. we have good candidates.

rick voucher has represented the coal mining area of virginia very well. host: both went down in 2010? guest: they went down, but a lot of people went down because there was not whole lot of turnout. a more indicative vote is when you get the kind of turnout of a presidential election. i think we're going to get a more balanced congress in 2012. people will be focused. the people that were most energized in 2010 tended to be the tea party folks, folks very displeased by the government. so they all came out in large numbers, much higher percentage than a normal year.

and the democrat said we have a democratic congress and democratic president, and i have other things to do, particularly young people and minorities. we will get a better reflection of the electorate in 2012, and i suspect as a result we will see much more balance in the legislative branch. host: congressman jim moran, thank you. we will continue our discussion on entitlement spending and budget cuts. some of the issues we have been discussing with jim moran. up next daniel webster from florida. we will meet him in just a minute. >> afghanistan's president speaking on a secure video conference earlier warned president obama that civilian casualties are a serious problem that needs to be better addressed by the u.s.-led

forces. nato apologize for the deaths today, and the top commander in that country said disciplinary action, if warranted, would be taken. those killed in this attack were nine afghan boys, ages 12 and under. the prosecution of the international criminal court is responding to the killings and libya as. -- killings in libya. with that, he says he will investigate muammar gaddafi and his inner circle for possible crimes against humanity and promises there will be "no impunity in libya." an update on the shootings in germany that killed two u.s. air men. the suspect has confessed to targeting the u.s. military.

the official says the investigation shows the man acted alone and did not belong to a terrorist network or sell. the man's family says he was a devout muslim. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> mit american history professor is on "book tv's" in- depth this sunday. she has written several books. join our three-hour conversation with pauline maier sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: we want to introduce you to one of the 87 republican freshmen in the house of representatives. on your screen is representative

daniel webster. he represents the eight district of florida. the orlando area. in 2010 he beat out an increase in -- alan greyson. a little bit about him before we get started. he was elected to the florida senate in 1998 and served as majority leader. he also served as speaker of the florida house of representatives during his tenure there. congressman webster, we just talked with congressman jim moran, who was talking about speaker boehner and said he thinks he has the tiger by the tail with the freshman class was probably more conservative than he is. is that a fair assessment? guest: john boehner is an

experienced leader, so i do not know he has ever had tigers by the tail. i think he is one step ahead of everybody. i think that is why he has done what he has done. he wants to get out of the way. he once the house of representatives to be the people's house. he wants people to have a say. he wants to be able to offer amendments on the floor in an open process. to me, i think he is an awesome speaker and someone who is up for the task. host: let's talk about some of the spending cuts and entitlement reforms that are being discussed on capitol hill right now. on the different budget tracks that are currently working their way through the house, have you voted for the 60 billion in cuts, the 4 billion in cuts, the continued resolution?

what is your voting record? guest: i have voted for them. i believe the people of america believe that the government needs to tighten its belt and balance its budget just like they have to do. i think that is the picture that i was drawn by the voters in the district i represent now. that is what they want. so if there is an opportunity to reduce spending, then i will take it. host: what about entitlement reform when it comes to social security, medicare, and medicaid? guest: if you think about what we have already done, we did a continuing resolution. it has nothing to do with the 2012 budget that the president put forth a couple of weeks ago. it has to do with the current budget. it only has to do with money is external to the entitlement programs.

-- it only has to do with yes external to the entitlement programs. the overall picture is a step- by-step process. i think that is what we should do with entitlements. there are the big three, social security, medicare and medicaid, but there are also others, and i think we should do it step-by- step. they are in deep trouble, and it will take awhile for us to get it straightened out, and i believe we should do it one at a time. host: one of the cuts that was made was by your own governor. do you agree with that decision to not accept federal funds for the project? guest: as i said, i believe he probably should have waited fortw two things. one is there is not the

secretary of transportation that has been appointed yet. i think he should have waited for the bids to come in to see what the private consortiums would have offered. that being said, he probably would have come to the same conclusion. at least he would know and you would know what is out there, and people that are private sector partners would be able to support or give to that program. so as far as the cutting of the budget, it really does not, because i assume the money will be transferred somewhere else. there are lots of places we can save money and cut the budget, but that one gets transferred and spent somewhere else. host: could you four see tax increases to get rid of the deficit -- foresee tax increases to get rid of the deficit? guest: no, i think this would be

the worst time for an increase. so, to me, that would be out of the question. it would pretty much stopped any kind of recovery that we have. we have to focus in on jobs and on cutting spending. it is like a two-pronged approach. the more we increase our employment and decrease unemployment and able to remove from our current budget to meet in the middle, and in the end hopefully we will have a balanced budget. host: daniel webster is our guest. mike republican from fairbanks, alaska. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i am originally from florida. guest: why would you move to alaska? caller: i done moved here when we were little kids. -- my dad moved here when we

were little kids. i think a consumption tax would be fair to everyone, because then your only tax on what you buy. you need an account to figure out your taxes. it would be a lot simpler if we went to a consumption tax. guest: i think first of all the tax code is not the problem. our spending is the problem. because we're not collecting the revenue necessary to fund the budget we have right now. we do not even collect enough money to do that. whatever the tax code is, it seems like it has been somewhat pushed aside, and there has not been much thought about the tax code, because you just print more money. i think the real problem is spending. that is what i believe the people in my district sent me

here to do, and that is to come up with common sense solutions. solutions that actually have a result to them. how do we do that? i think we do it by working together. we collectively work with not only republicans and democrats in the house, but also there is a president, senate, and house of representatives. i think by empowering all of the members coming together, cooperating in a way that would bring about change is what the american people are looking for. they are looking for us to come up with a common-sense solutions to some pretty tough problems, and they have a sense of urgency about that. i believe spending is the real problem, not the tax structure. although i do agree we have a mess up tax structure, and that is probably something in the future we will get to. it is just right now we have to deal with spending. host: good morning.

caller: i would like to say that the magic word here is discipline. if i can discipline myself to eat exactly 42 cents per meal, i am sure you can figure out a way to cut the budget way down. jim moran has an answer for everything, but he refuses to want to cut anything. guest: i appreciate your question. it is true, we are spending -- borrowing 4 billion to $5 billion per day. we cannot sustain that. just to give you a picture of a step-by-step approach. we, as the house of representatives, passed a continuing resolution to the senate, which they have not acted on yet, that save $61 billion out of the current continuing resolution that we

are operating under right now. through the end of this day. here is a picture of what it does. and why it is just a step. if we believe that government has a credit card, which it does, and we pull it out. we borrow between $4 million -- $4,000,000,000.705032704 dollars per day, all of this resolution would do is put this in our pocket one day, one day each month. it will take a while. -- we borrow between $4 million and $5 million per day. once we have gone the agreement that there needs to be cuts, and the senate did agree to that that there at least needs to be $4 billion in a two week time,

starts turning around. i hope we do that step-by-step, just like we have done with the continuing resolution. however we do it, we have to do it. we have to go and opposite direction. i think you are absolutely right. the american people have to balance their budget, and i think we need to do the same. host: would you be opposed to a government shutdown? guest: i would be opposed to a government shutdown as long as it includes some sort of reduction in spending. i think we have to couple the two. one side does not want to do anything, some way we have to have permanent cuts to the budget.

we need legitimate cuts in the current budget that we have right now. host: ohio, larry. democrat. you are on with the in the webster -- daniel webster. caller: you keep saying the tax rates are too high, but i am looking at a chart of the history of all the tax rates, and i am on the page for tax foundation, u.s. federal income tax rates from 1913-2000, and as i go down, i find that the tax rates are lower now than they have been in the 1930's. you cannot run a government on the same rates that he ran in the 1930's. this is impossible. you keep saying the tax rates are too low, but the individual tax rates are lower now than they have been since the 1940's.

guest: thank you for your comments. yes, that is true, however, i did not say we need to lower or raise taxes, i said we need to keep them right where they are. i think the other point is this, the amount of money made first is the percentage the government takes is two different things. the amount of money made in those days was far less in those days. i believe in the end we are right where we are. i just did not want to see the taxes go back to where they had been before the tax cuts took effect. i agree with that. host: raleigh, north carolina. elizabeth, good morning. caller: i am sick and tired of republicans going on television and bellyaching about the recession. we had republican policies that

gave us this recession, which gave us the foreclosures, which gave us all of the people out of work. as for the tea party, i am sure it is different in every state, but here in north carolina they have not even finished high school. they will protest the sky is blue. they say we're went to protest the sky is blue, hundreds of them would turn out in protest. they are a bunch of hot heads. host: congressman webster, any response to elizabeth? guest: i think the point is here we are spending more money than we're taking in. some way we have to bring that into balance. that is what i have to say to you. report to work together. we're cord to work in tandem. we will come up with common

sense solutions, and we're willing to have results. -- we are going to work in tandem. the government is a picture of just spending too much money. in my mind, we have to cut the spending in order to balance the budget. host: now that you have been here for three months, what has surprised you? how was it different from the florida house and senate? guest: the mechanics are the same. actually come i have had an opportunity to preside a couple of times, and that is the same. we file a minute, make speeches, all of those things are the same. the difference is where the decimal point is and how many zeros are there before you get to it. the amount of money we talk about in the state budget is far less. that is another thing about the

whole entitlement program we have been talking about. there is one of those, a medicaid program, which is shared by the states and money is shared by the states, and the federal government dictates the problems and sets the standards and the states have to fund a portion of that. i think if there is any one program, the medicaid program is the one we should start with first, because it affects states. i probably know as much about the medicaid program as people in congress, because we had to actually do it. even the president this past week when he talked to the national governors' association said i know this is one of the biggest things in your budget, and i am open to changing whatever we need to do. in order to bring about a better financial picture for states. host: gov. scott was quoted in this article --

the you agree with the block grant approach to medicaid -- do you agree with the block grant approach to medicaid? guest: i have been saying all along that orlando, fla., in new york city did not have anything in common, but the cookie cutter approach of medicaid is they do have everything in common. here is your program, here is the cookie cutter, take it or leave it. i know the president said that. i think states need to determine their own needs. once they determine that need, i believe they can create at a local level, public/private partnerships to do more with less. host: jason of the republican

line. good morning to you. caller: this is jason from local tea party movement. i want to thank you for coming back to the district and having a town hall and really bringing the truth back in facing us to the reality of the spending problem and the debt and the deficit. we really appreciated that. with regard to spending, there are couple of proposed balanced amendments. hjr is one that actually includes -- host: jason? looks like he got cut off. sorry about that. i do not know if his phone and went out or what. he was talking about balanced budget and the tea party. guest: i will say this, the balanced budget amendment is a

great idea, however, it does take years to accomplish. i am not sure what your question would be about it, but i do support a balanced budget. i think we have to start right now. this is a great thing. it is a goal, something we're shooting for. if we could get it through the congress and then to the states and they would approve it, we would have an umbrella over the top of this. but, in the end, we need to start right now. by the time that happened, we may be on our way to bigger problems and deficits, and we have to start now. i know you would want us to do that, and that is what we are doing. i appreciate your involvement in the electoral process and the two-party and your support for me personally. host: were you elected with tea

party support? guest: i have a great relationship with the tea party support. i have not joined in the caucasus. i have enough meetings to go to. i think i just have to get started and get my feet on the ground, and then i will figure out extra meetings. as far as agreeing with the fact that we need to tighten our belts and balance the budget and treat these problems was some sort of urgency and responsibility, i plan on doing that. . .

guest: it is a funded program, medicaid, medicare, and social security. i think it is ubblent that we take on -- urgent that we take object 0 medicaid first, and -- on medicaid first.

host: next call for republican daniel webster. caller: i am wondering why the you us cuts spending from the states instead of is ss when -- social security when 1% is going to defense spending. guest: how are you watching c-span? caller: from a public television.

guest: what we're dealing with is a continuing resolution which only talks about one-sixth of the budget. one-third would be non-discretionary spending. so we're working on that for the current year. we will also, simultaneously, starting this month, start working on a budget that would be for 2012. that would include the other items that you mentioned. so again, we're looking at the smaller portion of it right now. that's all we're talking about as far as a continuing resolution. that's the only thing that runs out today. later on we'll be proposing a budget that will be for the full amount of money we take in. that will be much different. i appreciate your call.

host: but again, you would be willing to put defense spending on the block? guest: i have. and we did make cuts in deaf spending. -- defense spending. there has been an overall change, and we passed those in our fir c.o. they have not picked them up yet, but hopefully they will. host: bob, you are on with congressman daniel webster. caller: thank you for taking my call. one thing i am not hearing from the copping or -- congress is, what's going on with your pay? why not cut your pay a quarter or a half?

my pay got cut two weeks ago. i got cut $19,000 a year. i have kids in college. i have one son in the air force. i don't hear anything happening -- are you-all doing anything to take the string off of us? thank you for your call, and god bless america. guest: i don't know about jobs, but i do know about p me. what i said is i didn't come here for benefits or anything else. i came here to hopefully make a difference for our children and grandchildren. i have six grandchildren. one more on the way. her name is claire. she's going to be born next month. as far as rolling back the house of representatives, we rolled our budget back, and took a 5% cut to the budget itself. i personally have said, i'm going to roll my own salary back to the 2008 level.

i also have not taken the health care benefits. i have not taken the dental and or the vision benefits that are there. like i said, i didn't come here for those, i came here to make a different. you are right, if there is a place we can cut, we ought to take it. >> how are you covered if you have health insurance? >> i have my own coverage, and i pay for it. it is about four times what i pay here. i know that the health benefits here are subs advertised, so i pay -- subsidized, and i don't that is fair to the american people, so i pay for my own. >> could you like to see that changed in some way?

guest: congress sometimes is viewed as an elite group of people. in the end, i don't think they should be treated any differently than any other people. i have a pick-up truck. it has 178,000 miles on it. it is a ford f-160 pick-up truck, and to me, that is the way it awe to be. we ought to come here to not enrich ourselves, but to better our country. host: would you not have supported the health care bill that passed last march? >> i would not have. host: given what you are paying for your own health plan, could you see some type of health care insurance reform that would benefit people hike you, benefit members of congress, benefit

america? guest: i do. that the where we started. we started with hr-2. we also began a process of replacement. i believe there are self components which need to be in that. i think we need to protect the patient-doctor relationship. i think we need to actually have health care costs reduced. and i do believe that there are possibilities with those partnerships i talked about. if you look at it, the major addition of coverage was raising the coverage in medicare by -- from 100% to 33%. that is also a state program, which we have talked about before, and to me those partnerships can be done, and they can work. i have examples, and hopefully at some other time we can come

back and talk about those examples. >> next call from tulsa, oklahoma. tim, independent line. caller: hi, congressman webster. how do you believe that independentents and democrats will take republicans seriously about cutting the budget, cutting the deficit, if you guys are not talking about deep cuts in defense in terms of closing military bases, things of that nature, before you start talking about cutting social programs such as social security and medicare and medicaid? >> well, what we were handed was a continuing resolution for this current year that ends today. and so we had to scramble to do what we've done. don't jump us on this. it is only a small part of the budget. it was short order.

it is not the norm. we usually do a budget for the entire year all the way through september 0. that did not happen, and we were handed what we were handed. we are trying to make up the different. we do have cuts. we did offer those. we sent them to the senate, and we acted on those. they did cut in defense, and they cut the other discretionary spending. however we'll developing a budget for 2012. that will go in effect until october 1. wait until you see that, then you can judge us if we did the right thing or not. >> colorado springs, jan, republican line. caller: i have been a republican a long time. but when i look at it, we have the religious right, we have the tea party, and none of those people represent me. i am very upset at what i see

republicans doing. i don't see a shared sacrifice going on. i don't see them getting rid of subsidies to the oil companies. until we see a shared sacrifice, i have to figure out if i am going to vote democrat this next election. the things i've seen going on in ohio, wisconsin. i am so floored. i have never seen the republican party act like this. the tea party people, we have run a pizza par lower, but i don't know -- parlor, but i don't know if they know how to govern. host: ok. i think we have the point. congressman webster. guest: i appreciate your position. i was sent here to represent all the people in district a, and i am going to do it to the best of my ability. host: do you have an opinion

about what is going on in wisconsin and ohio and will that go on in tallahassee at some point? guest: i don't know what's going on in tallahassee. i do believe that elected officials who slirk -- shirk their duties need to show up and vote. that's my one thought. they were elected just like anyone else. the people that elected them expect them to show up in their capital city and they need to express their opinions, offer amendments, vote, whatever it is. they need to produce a quorm -- quorum. the only thing i see out of line is a group of elected officials that would leave and not do the very thing they were elected to do. host: ron, democrats line.

caller: they gt rid of two republicans that voted no and replaced them with two republicans that voted yes, so that bill in ohio passed. the main thing i want to ask you is, how can you sit there and talk about entitlement cuts and everything else, what are your views on taxing the rich? what are tax breaks to the rich doing? where is this trickle down? what is it that's trickling down? i don't see it. you talk about shared sacrifice, and i think you guys are out to destroy the middle class and bring us back to 1900 where you have rich and poor and no middle class at all. host: ok. i think we have the point. guest: i appreciate what you said there. i don't believe we have for

gotten anyone. we believe, like many others, that we can solve a good portion of our problems by creating jobs. the federal government, through its own spending, does not create jobs. mall businesses create jobs, and that's what we're trying to do. we ought to get out of the way. there has been a fear of what's coming next. a fear of more health care regulations, a fear of some sort of bureaucrat regulations on businesses, so they have not hired. because they have not hired, we have a high unemployment rate. to me, that is one of the main things we are doing. we are taking things off the table so businesses can go out and have free reign. if we could take away that fear, i think we would have a better america. host: as a long-time elected official, do you think that the republican party is trending

more as jim from colorado springs meppingsed? guest: no. the spending has been out of control. $1.5, $1.65, $1.3, whatever, trillion deficits each year, year after year after year. there becomes a day when there will be no solution because we'll be totally bankrupt. i think that's the idea of doing things that amany might seem as drastic is because i think among the voters, they are the ones that actually electeded us and they looked at our philosophy and said, this is what we want. that took place in the elections. so that has been decided. i think the point is, though, they want and see a sense of urgency. when they have given us a responsibility, like i show that card and say i have a responsibility to do something

about this. to me, whether it is -- i see conservatives, moderates, and liberals together shall if they look -- together, if they look at the facts, will come to the same conclusion. host: robert from michigan. caller: i watch c-span and the senate and the difference i notice since the republicans took over the house is when they say they are going to start at 12:00, bang, they start at 12:00. i watched the senate this past week. there is a quoreyum -- qur -- quorum, in are -- there are no people to speak. thank you for letting me get this off my chest. guest: thank you for that. i think you can thank john boehner. john boehner is a person that

wants to see change. he wants the house to be a people's house, just like it should be, and he wants to make sure that people know that that congress is concerned, and starting on time is one of those things. host: representative daniel webster, thank you for coming over to wurnl -- "washington journal" and taking calls from our viewers. coming up, we will talk about non-profit organizations, their role in providing government services, how the donation system is working out. this news up first from c-span radio. >> it is 9:18. the number of benefits dropping by 20,000. a third decline in the last four weeks. applications at their lowest level since may 2008. the labor department says productivity grew in the final quarter of 2010 at the fastest

pace in nine months. for the year, productivity up 3.9%. the biggest increase in eight years. as for retailers, they are reporting solid revenue gains for february, extending the strong holiday sales. rising gas prices could affect shoppers' spending on other items. stocks appear headed for gains. in response to these release numbers, futures up 89. nasdaq up 82. those are some of the latest numbers on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal" connecting you with elected sfaleds, policymakers k -- elected officials, policymakers, and journalists. also supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend you can see our interview programs.

saturdays "the communicators" and sundays footage from the british house of commons. it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span, washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now on your screen is tim delaney. he is president and c.e.o. of a group called nonprofits. our goal is to talk about the role and mission of nonprofit and how they interact with state and federal government. tim delaney, welcome to the "washington journal." can we start by getting a deaf anything on the table by what non-profits are?

guest: sure. first of all, we are the nation's largest network of nonprofits. we span the range of nonprofit hospitals and communities to community theaters. it is a broad range at the national council of nonprofits. there are a little over a million charitable nonprofits in america today. host: what kind of services do you provide when it comes to related services that government provides? how do you interact? guest: actually the nonprofit sector is a solid partner with government. we work closely with government to provide services to the same constituents in the same communities. so that's one of the big themes we have is the partnership between government and nonprofits. host: are you funded by government? guest: there is a misperception that government gives money to nonprofits. in fact, our governments rely

heavily on nonprofits, but sometimes they enter into contracts. the he can tent to which -- extent to which government relies on nonprofits i think will astound most americans. host: give us an example. guest: the urban institute did a survey of just human service nonprofit. that would be the ymca, the food bank, et cetera. it is not education, it is not health care, it is just human services. with with just human services, they found there were governments that eventered into over 200 contracts with nonprofits. another example said another way, the comtroller of the state of illinois was asked last year through a freedom of information request can you tell how many nonprofits the state of illinois owes money to. he put together a 50-page list

of more than 2,000 nonprofits the state of illinois owed more than half a billion to for services delivered. metropolitanal health care services, child care services, a variety of other services where the state of illinois had failed to pay. that was for the first six months of last year alone. our states and local governments rely extensively on nonprofits to deliver services. host: we have a figure from the urban interest tute. -- institute. donations, 19%, fees 16%, government, 60%. 60% of nonprofit source funding comes from government. that seems awfully high. guest: it does seem high until you consider that again government does not provide the services. they contract with nonprofits.

government discovered a long time ago, actually in the 1960's, and it has continued ever since, that nonprofits can be much more efficient and effective in delivery of services. that the why we have seen over the years governments are privatizing, turning to nonprofits. they are not making money off of these. they are often losing money off these contracts, and then relying on nonprofits to deliff the services. host: are nonprofits putting in bids for services? guest: certainly. host they are going for the contracts? guest: and bidding for them. the urban institute study last year revealed more than 50% of nonprofits were reporting that they had to raise at least 25% matching funds in order to win the contracts, in order to perform the work for governments. i often throw out the question, do we as a nation want to rely

upon people that have to then ask for more money to deliver basic human services so people can sleep under shelters, so people can eat, so that children can be protected. we don't ask defense contractors to raise 25 peff of the fighter jet before we bid a contract to them. we don't ask the highway contractor to take in 25% of the cost of the highway building. why are we turning to the nonprofit sector and saying you have to raise 25%. in deed 60% of nonprofits have to raise 60% or more to get the funds. host: if someone calls a depft number, will they be steered to the ymca or volunteers of america or some other organization directly? guest: oftentimes they are. you are calling up for metropolitanal health services, saying my son has experienced a problem, then you will be

directed to the metropolitanal health provider that the state has entered into a contract with. the state doesn't then say call this around to three or four different places before they know who to send you to, but yes, it will go to the organizations wanting to bid. host: aside from the funding issue, does that system work in your view? guest: it does work in the sense that nonprofits are out there making decisions for admission to try to serve the community the best way. nonprofits don't have to go through all the different procurement laws that can weigh down government. we can stream line things. we're closer in the communities than a distant washington, d.c. local decisions can be made better to meet the local needs. host: we are talking to tim

delaney from the national council of nonprofits. we are trying to get a handle on the services they provade and what the funding -- provide and what the funding is like. one more chart we want to show you before we go to calls, problems from government grants to nonprofit -- payments do not not cover full cost of service. complexity and time required for reporting. complexity and time required for filling out the application, government changes to grapts and contracts, and -- grants and contracts, and late payments by governments. those are huge issues. guest: those are huge, and those are the ways we are seeing this come across. as the state governments are

experiencing severe crises and they are having to dut services, most americans are not aware that state governments have lost 20% of revenue in the last three years and it is about to get worse. so while the wall street ticker tape may show wall street is starting to recover, there is a significant lag for what happens with state and local governments. as state and local governments are having to make some horrendous choices, they are first cutting nonprofits. first by cutting the money from legally binding contracts and i'll get back to those. the second waive -- wave is taking money away from nonprofit missions and the work we are delivering in communities by imposing new taxes on nonprofits, disguysed -- disguised fees on nonprofits, and imposing payment in lieu of

taxes. the third way is the government starting to abandon programs and saying, we're not going to do this anymore. we are going to require someone else to pick it up. silently they are saying nonprofits will do it. i say "silently" somewhat in jest, because i was in colorado last week, and there i was hearing legislative leaders saying thank good northeast they are nonprofits. we are right-sizing governments. thank goodness nonprofits will be there to pick up the pieces. as though we had money trees in our back yard. one of the important things the urban institute found was that more than 40% of the human service providers in america, the nonprofits, are running deficits. 40% are running deficits yet governments are abandoning programs expecting us to pick up

the slack. host: let's take some calls. caller: my first point is, we don't have money trees growing in the back yard either. the last caller from colorado that claimed to be a republican, that happens so much on c-span, and i do have a solution. my solution is, because it has been going on for years, and it is very frequent, all right republicans, let's start calling up on the democrats line, say we've been a democrat all our life and then rail against effing that the democrats stand for. then we can have the host sit there silently and let them go on and on. it really is a problem. you should challenge these people who are so blatantly lying about their party affiliation. it makes this call-in thing a big fraud. host: all right, patty. thank you.

taxpayers. money trees for taxpayers. guest: we in the federal government realize taxpayers do not have money trees either. an example, your caller was just from minneapolis. in minneapolis they found they have the state constitutional provision that prevents them from taxing nonprofits. so to get around that provision, the city has imposed a street fee. because they couldn't tax them directly accident they said if you have a street pole in front of your location, you will have to pay a fee on those poles. we recognize our partners in government are running out of money. at the same time, we need to have a community dialogue to talk about sane solutions rather than just passing the buck on to nonprofits. host: is this the most efficient

and best way to use services? by contracting to nonprofits? guest: we found in the early 1900's that there was -- we found that we, the american people, the courts found there were a number of abuses going on when government were taking direct care of people, locking up the mentally ill, locking up of the elderly, and courts then intervened and said we cannot as a society continue doing this. it forced lawmakers to go back and reexamine how they could provide better services. that's how they started contracting with services. caller: good morning. my son graduated in 1997. we formed a booster club and got a nonprofit.

and the idea was to -- whatever the school couldn't afford for the athletes, we came in and, you know, fulfilled that need. for instance, instead of them traveling on school buses, we got charter buses for them. if they had to stay overnight, we could pay for a hotel room. and my point is, that nonprofits -- it should just be for businesses -- it shouldn't just be for businesses, it has to be for communities and, up, taking up the slack where ever it's needed. that's something that's -- is this something that's going to be allowed to continue?

guest: yes. actually, the american spirit actually lives through our nonprofits. our first amendment of the constitution protects our ability as americans to come together with our freedom of association. it is very important that we continue to do that. when the spirit moves us to come together and work on community problems. it might be to augment what's going on in the school district, such as you did generously with your time and your money. your neighbors joined you and the community came together. other people rally around a given disease and they say, we want to find a cure. others say mental illness is what they are passionate about. for others, it's arts. that the the beauty of the nonprofit system. we are so diverse, we are so different so americans can reach out and serve our communities the way we want to on an individual basis. host: pat was talkinging about a booster club for a high school as a nonprofit. in your view, is there something

fundamentally wrong with a system where private support is needed to support a public school, or is this the way we have always done it? guest: both, peter. it is the way we have always done it, but we are seeing the drive to cut taxes so much that our school districts are actually not able to deliver some of the basic services. they are not able to do the arts. they are not p able to do athletics. so nonprofits are being brought in to provide those services. i have been watching here in the d.c. area where a number of the school districts are starting to create their own separate foundations to raise additional money because they are not able to pay for some of the basics going on. our university systems, our public university systems, i think it will shock most persons to learn how little our state legislatures are putting into them. i just was reading yesterday in the "the washington post" that

u.v.a. -- that it was 20 years ago 26% of their revenue came from the state legislature, and now it is down to something like 12%. so most of us think gee the universities, these are public universities, thees are public school systems, and it is all paid for by the public. but in fact, it is not by taxpayers. there is an awful lot being abandoned and placed on the shoulders of nonprofits to fill those voids. host: tim delaney brings a legal background to the national coum of nonprofits. he served as solicitor general in arizona and chief security director under janet napalatano when she was governor out there for several years. he's a d.a. from yale university and has an m.p.a. and a j.d., law degree, from the university of texas at austin. longdale, north carolina, jeff, good morning. caller: good morning. i wamented to ask the gentleman

p the nonprofit part of it. if you got, like, be united way and stuff like that, you know, corpgs doing that -- corporations doing that, and they seem to have quite a bit of profit because they give their erika de souza -- their c.e.o.'s large retirement packages and things like that. i'm wondering if it is nonprofit, how do the c.e.o.'s get so much money? that's what i wanted to ask. guest: thank you for your question. i used to create a course on how to create a new nonprofit. i learned when i would ask the people in the class why they were here, and invariably their response would be, 25% would say, i don't want to pay taxes anymore. there is a misunderstanding about nonprofits as though their employees are not paid, that they are all volunteers. in fact, 10% of america's work force works on an employed basis

on a salary basis through the nonprofit sector. so we are a huge part of the american work force but we are often ignored. in terms of c.e.o. salaries, "the new york times" did a suddeny and published it -- study and published it last year and they showed executive level salaries for nonprofits were actually smaller than the for-profit comparisons. the non-profit sal -- salaries are set by boards. are there abuses? yes. sadly, there are. there are abuses on wall street and elsewhere also. that's why there has been a significant effort in the nonprofit sector to treach people where the lines are drawn -- teach people where the lines are drawn and how to make decisions fairly. host: north creek park. caller: hi. i have two questions. a lot of immigrants get a lot of

free services we appropriate for. with all kidding aside, we know they work for free and do not pay taxes. do we not need to go avenue them to put into the pot as americans do? secondly, what about all the money a nonprofit organization has made if they turn a profit on gold? where does all that money go? guest: i p can't talk to the specifics of the issue you referred to, but that's the stark difference between a 501-c charitable and a for-profit enterprise. a for-profit enterprise people can keep the money. that's why people on wall street, some of those people were running henl -- hedge funds with billions of dollars.

nonprofits, all the money that is made is required by law to be plowed back into the organization towards its mission. yes, they can pay their employees, yes they can pay for rent, yes they can pay for services they need. but all the money goes back into the nonprofits for them to deliver services in the broader community. host: this tweet from joe. "what do you see as the future of community development bloch grants?" guest: the community development block grants are still alive. we can see there is a proposal to defud them. it will require a lot of action by americans to step forward and talk about how important those are and what will be government by our communities, by constituents who vote, if that is taken away. many americans rely upon these.

if we take them away, there will be americans receiving -- fewer basic human services. so we need to call on our elected officials and raise our voices. host: how did this all get started with nonprofits taking such an increasing role in delivering government services? guest:: it is really an effort that began in the johnson administration in terms of the war on poverty. he felt as we were competing against russia that mother russia was too large and perhaps washington, d.c. was getting too large and decisions could be better made in the local communities. ronald reagan fueled that by coming up with programs such as the -- some of the larger block grant programs to privatize and get more money out in the

private sector that awant to be more mobile and more nimble in making decisions. so we have had democrats and republicans alike come along and say it is important for our government to do things as officially and effectively as possible, so we would do that through nonprofits. host: do you agree it is more nimble and more effective to make the local zigs? guest: i do believe that local decisions can be made much better. the problem comes up, and you alluded to this in the urban interest tute study, when our partners in government enter into legally-binding contracts with us and then fail to pay. some of the issues you identified from the urban interest tute report were governments not paying their fair share, not paying the full rate. we have swayings in massachusetts where they still using reimbursement rates from

1988 that have not been changed. where governments are not paying nonprofits through the use of swipe cards. they call them procurement cards or "p" cards in many states, they are paying them that way, but when the naup profit is paid, 3% to 5% is taken off the top and goes to a distant bank and is not used as services in the local community. that is causing a great deal of heart ache and problems and it is hurting taxpayers who are not getting their fair share of the services delivered and the community is not being served. host: thank you for holding. you are on with tim delaney, president and c.e.o. of the national council of nonprofits. caller: basically what you are saying is with all of the government-run things and the government-subsidized organizations, that the

government can run things better than the private sector, therefore take more money from the private sector, give it to the nonprofit organizations through the government instead of giving your money, taxpayer money, that the government is ripping out of us? i used to give to charity, faith-based organizations. that did 1 had you been hundred% good with that money, and i made sure of that. i have looked at nonprofit organizations. i looked at, i think, 13 different groups, and all of them are getting mobe through government grants and all of that stuff, and the waste, abuse and fraud that i saw from our

money, my money that i make, my wife's money that she makes, that is being taken from the government, it is the the government's money. it is the taxpayers' money. we could be doing a lot better with that by giving to organizations instead of the government. remember, the states made the government. the government did not make the states. host: mr. delaney. guest: jeff, i would encourage you to look at nonprofits. i think if you continue to do so you will find they are more fibt and effective than government themselves. nonprofits are private. they are not public. they are private entities. they are private corpgs set up for a public purpose, and that's why they are called a nonprofit. so nonprofits are not driven by

the profit motive accident so we don't build in additional money for profit. wee here in the mission-delivery purpose, so we are focused on delivering mission. i am proud of the nonprofits for americans that are meeting local needs, that are feeding the hungry, that are housing the homeless, that are taking care of little kids, taking care of the elderly. how that impacts the for-profit sector when the single mom can't drop off her children at a non-profit child care center because the funding has been taken away from it, then she can't drop off her kids, then she has to figure out what she is going to do, and will she be able to continue her job? her emloir then has someone who may not be as dependable and may lose her great talent. same thing as an individual dropping off her parents at a senior center. our nonprofits are really

partner as not only with the government but also partners with the for-profit enterprises to allow them to prosper. our arts community, for example, a lot of businesses when they are looking at where they will relocate, a significant factor is where they have a vibrant arts community. studies have shown people are much mow innovative when they are exposed to art. that the what a lot of people want. we are in this to the. it is a three-legged stool. the for profit, the nonprofit, and the business sector all working together for the common platform of the community. host: tim delaney, since september 2008, how have your donations been? is that a time when the government started to make more late payments? was there an increase in service requests? guest: that is actually our

major problem. when you say "our" i assume you are referring to the nonprft sector as a whole. we watched when the economy collapsed in september 2008. private doe nages -- donations have gone down. foundation grants have gone doub. on top of that, government is withholding its payments anding money away from programs. so we are watching watching on the one hand ow revenue -- we are watching on the one had how revenue sources are going down and how they are not being paid. and i am asking elected officials to do the math. we are doing so much more with so much less, we need to look at what the community's needs are. how can we as a society meet those community needs.

host: caller, dep ahead. caller: the people that make $250,000 a year need to give to charity. the lady that called in and said she used to be a republican. i was born and raised republican k and my family always voted republican. that's the way we always was. i was against my party since 2004 and voted a different direction. and it's not what they stand for, it is just because -- and i don't think -- host: we got the point, rachel. we got your first point for tim delaney, talking about doe nages and the wealthy. do you have a breakdown of how people donate to charity? guest: actually the research

shows that first of all americans have been very generous over thees. it is still stagnant at about 2% in terms of giving rates. it has gone down. host: 2% per house hold individual? guest: yes. the study in the overall averages, those people that make less actual hi give more percentage-wise than those who are wealthy. many researchers wonder, is that because they know the importance of nonprofits and the value of the services that we provide? just think of it this way. we used to have 5%, 4% to 5% unemployment. we in america have a new 5%, because we have about 10% of the

people who are unemployed. that 5%, those people are the same ones that thee months ago were delivering food at the food banks. now they are showing up needing services. people are hurting, and that's why we need to come together as a community to solve these problems. host: go ahead. guest: if i had just one minute with president obama i would ask, we have the american work force, 10% of the work force works for the nonprofit sector. yet for 230 years of american had hitri, we have never had a cabinet position for the nonprofit sector. government relied so extensively on nonprofits to deliver goods and services to the broader community, and yet our government, no is looking at the health and well being of the nonproperty sector. 2 po years of american government, really at the federal level but hs the state level.

finally in january of this year, the governor of connecticut appointed the first cabinet level nonprofit layson -- liaison. and i urge president obama to appoint someone to the cabinet for the nonprofit sector for which the u.s. americans rely. host: northbound call from nevada. go ahead. caller: i ran a nonprofit in reno, nevada. we were rehabbinging people coming out of prison. for every dollar the agency received, we were able to save $11 up front out ward. cold cost $11 because our people were the going back to prison.

there was a major reduction in crime, we were able to prove, because our people were pp repeat offenders of the only 23% of them wept back in the three-year period of time, rather than the normal 76 peff. so we were able to prove our costs. i have always appreciated nonprofits that could get down exactly what their services were doing to help. right now oop i'm volunteer -- right now i'm volunteering with a nonprofit, a food pantry, and we are seving 250 families per week. you are talking about 1,000 people getting food that don't have work. we have a 19.7 unemployment rate cutly, and it -- currently, and it doesn't hook like it's getting bet he. -- better. guest: thank you so much for sharing.

the lesm that the -- leverage that the nonprofit serves, we can have great impact. you mention the $1 to $11 average -- leverage you have, but how about the additional leverage of these people not going back to crime and serving their community in a productive way? that ayields con stat benefits for everybody. i salute you and all americans that are working in the nonprofit sector and have you tearing their time and -- and volunteering their dollars. it is important for us as americans to come together with our time, our treas our, and our talent. host: when you see a bush foundation set up to provide aids prevention services, what kind of services -- are they running parallel to government services? how are they ipt acting?

-- interacting? guest: the american nonprofit foundations got started you with andrew carnegie. their idea was they would take experiments and see what would and would not work through their think tanks and other operations. then they would share it with government to scale it up and make it better for everybody. that is something we all ought to be striving for. unfortunately, with our state governments in particular we are hearing that some elected officials are saying we're going to cut this program and we'll let the foundation fill the void. they have not done the math where only 1% of a nonprofit's revenue stream comes from

foundation grants. we cannot put that burden on the foundation saying they will fill the void. if the gates foundation poured in all of its money now, they would not be able to solve all the budget criees in the states. -- criees in the states. so we need to talk about coming together. host: caller. caller: i have questions about haiti. i want it know who dropped the ball. across the world i know money came in to restore that island and rebuild that city and get those people back 0 their feet. i would like to know how much bush and clinton's foundation actually brought in for the haitian prodgeet alone. -- project alone. everybody was grumbling after wards at the red cross, but they

weren't grumbling at any of the other founges. the last time they showed pictures of haiti on the tv, they were working with old bulldozers. guest: i can't fiff you specifics -- give you specifics on how much money be went into haiti and who dropped the ball. whether it was the haitian government or the relief efforts going in there from others. our organization focuses more on -- we're a national cowl of nonprofits. we focus with what is happening within the united states with our charitable organizations. that's where we're seeing so many of the cuts coming in at the state and local level, and then attempts to start actually taxing nonprofits. in nass awe county -- nassau

county, new york, for instance, they imposed a sewer fee and imposeded it only against nonprofits and they hope to raise $14 million to $18 million on that so that every time a toilet gets flushed and creates new sewage, there is a toilet tax imposed on nonprofits. it is this creative mind set not appreciating that the nonprofit that has to pay new fees and taxes it takes away from our service delivery to people in the community. so that mom might not get fed. the child might not be able to get preschool support, et cetera. host: do you have a macro number of how much americans contribute to charity every year like for 2009 or 2010? and what percentage of government services are nonprofits now providing? do you have those macro numbers? guest: i don't have them off the

top of my head. the second number, in terms of how much our government is providing or relying on nonprofits, nobody has that number. the reason being, our government doesn't clebt that sort of money at the local, state -- doesn't collect that information at the local, state, or federal level. that's why we were supportive of a bipartisan bill called the nonprofit sector and community shuges act that would have been -- it would have set up for the first time and say, we have concerns. let's try to fix some of the the problems. amazingly, the bill was designed to say how can we fix the federal government to make it a better partner with nonprofits? so that was he can citing. but also to require the federal government to start analyzing some of this information so they can give us