looks at negotiations between national football league owners and players. then, national journal health care reporter megyn mccarthy talks about the struggle between the executive branch and state governors and the future of medicaid. "washington journal," is next. host: a look at the capitol where it has been a busy week in washington. the busy week coming to a close. lawmakers across the country and state capitals from sea to sign the ec are changing drug sentencing laws. that is what we will be talking about for the first 45 minutes. good morning, today is saturday, march 5th.

delaware, florida, indiana, massachusetts, and pennsylvania are those that have pending bills to reduce penalties for drug offenders. similar laws have taken effect in south carolina, colorado, and new york. states have maintained stiff penalties for more serious drug crimes. we will want to get your input about that. if you have called us in the last 30 days, the day would be the day to send us a message electronically. you can send us the e-mail or you can contact us through twitter. once we make the connection, make sure to turn york

television set down or your radio. more of the article in this morning's "wall street journal," under the heading "states rethink drug laws." a growing number of states are renouncing some of the long prison sentences that have been a hallmark of the war on drugs and instead focusing on treatment which once skeptical lawmakers say is proving to be less expensive and more effective. kentucky became the first --

course we want to get your thoughts about states rethinking drug sentencing laws. hello? this is jane. jane in tennessee, go ahead. caller: this is overdue. they should reconstruct the families that have been torn by all of these draconian laws. we don't have a justice system, we have a system of punitive action against the families, against these people. we have got to do something about the people who are unjustly convicted every year. these families and communities

are torn down by a loss. we need to look at this again because this just paints everyone with a bottle brush. we have many people are wrongly convicted and they have to register every year and no one would like to touch them. people don't know what we should have our committees and we should work with. host: pete on our line for democrats, thank you. caller: if the conservatives were serious about saving the taxpayer money, they would take a good look at what is happening with the costs involved with prosecuting drug dealers, the cost of the court system, the cost that along with fighting the war on drugs on the mexican

border. it costs this country hundreds of billions of dollars. the idea that they are talking about not giving the heating oil to poor people who needed yet not rethinking on how to reduce the cost by decriminalizing drugs. i am not an advocate of legalization. host: what do you think about the sentencing laws in new york? . .

and then they cannot get jobs once they leave. so the drug sentences all over the country, specifically new york, must be changed because of what it is doing to the community. host: john in jacksonville, florida. caller: yes.

i just want to drop this before i make my comment. if the u.s. is serious about doing something about drugs, why don't they get rid of drugs in afghanistan? back on the topic. i think it's a wise decision to lessen the severity of punishment for those crimes for drugs. because you put a person in jail and they come out they're a hardened criminal because ft environment you're putting them in. and we know from after prohibition was lifted crime went down. so if you take away some of the penalties for drug abuse and for drug use, you are end some of the crimes. >> host: that's john in jacksonville. more from the article in "wall street journal." while the changes are part of the belt tightening efforts they also reflect a growing belief that prosecuting drug offenders aggressively often fails to true treat their underlying addiction problems and can result in offenders

cycling in and out of prisons for years, a critique long voiced by groups that advocate in favor of the defts' rights. back to phones. on our line for independents. caller: how are you doing. this is tony calling from texas. i spoke to you soment months ago but this time i'm glad to be able to speak to you today. i just want to say that bill clinton and the black law should be held responsible for allowing these to be enforced and in place because it goes back to bill clinton. secondly, these laws have

really devastated my black community. i have a bunch of friends who are doing 20, 30 years, their kids are growing up without a father figure, where i come from most of these people are just entrepreneurs who just really didn't know a way to find a different path in life. and by the time they found a different path they have strikes against them and no one wants to give them a break. and it's sad that clinton and the black law makers that we voted for put us in this position and we really need to do something about it. >> host: before you go, tell me more about this feeling that you have regarding president clinton and black lawmakers. how did they get this situation? caller: please correct me but five grams of crack for five years was, the fife grams of crack law that gave people five years for mandatory sentences,

that was established under bill clinton and black calks members who went with this. they should look themselves in the mirror and understand that's why a lot of people who look like their kids are doing time because they thought this was the right move to make. host: we have a twitter message 6 h back to the phones. great falls, virginia. fred on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i wish i could make more phone calls more than once a month. host: go ahead. caller: three points. one is we save a lot of money by doing this law because these people go to jail and mess

people, become criminal. and you see people, police find one joint in some people's car and say ok we got you. and that's not good even for the economy. and the other point is that all these drugs is a part of nature. god let them grow for some reason. and all used in medication. so the point is teach and learn hard to keep the balance in things. how much to use. 5,000 years ago they find the mummies with a bag beside them full of marijuana. host: let's move on to darrell in st. louis, missouri on our line for democrats. caller: i've seen a lot of my friends who have either died or been put in jail for a long time because of drug trade.

i think the war on drugs is a dismal failure. we know back in the 80's that it was the iran continue ra scandal that would bring drugs into this country from the santa nieceas ronald reagan and oliver north, that's what was going on. it's our c.i.a. that's behind the drug trade and sooner or later our media is going to realize that. that's how they fund all their black projects. host: we'll leave it there. more from the "wall street journal's" lawmakers mr. jensen said, this is tom jensen who is a state republican senator in kentucky.

back to the phones. huntsville, alabama. michael on the line for republicans. caller: thank you very much. it's one of those deals i personally feel that it's been going on for over 100 years ever since the f.d.a. started getting involved. it's all about the money. lawyers make the money, the system makes the money. it's essentially class warfare. they keep the poor. the rich get away with it, the

poor don't. and that's my opinion. i think they should remove all drug laws. otherwise, enforce all drug laws. if grandpa can't steer because he's taking too much viagara, he doesn't get a penalty. but a guy that has maybe one toke or is a little impaired doesn't. so, i don't know, it's all wrong. it's all about the money. host: let's move on to rick in pennsylvania, florida. rick, on our line for independents. caller: i would first off say that i actually support the changes to or not the actual changes that are proposed but at least changes in that direction. so a part of what i'm going to say is dg devil's advocate here. it seems to me that if it weren't for the u.s. drug user and the amount of money that we pour into the process, that the drug violence across the entire world would probably decrease

by about 90%. that especially the drug violence in mexico would just about go away. because there just wouldn't be any money to finance it. but so i think we need to remember that the drug user is actually not a so-called victimless crime. that he has tens of thousands of victims of the violence that he is financing. so the treatment that is being proposed needs to be forced and long term and needs to have long term outpatient followup after these people are released. that's sort of where i think we need to go. so i think the law proposed are still flawed. host: so how would you change the flaws in those laws? would you extend the period of time for mandatory rehabilitation periods? or extend time for folks in prison or how would you do that?

>> i think the mandatory rehabilitation is what i'm talking about. but the problem with those rehabilitation programs tends to be that they start releasing these people, especially when budgets start getting tight they start using that as an excuse to release them when they're not ready to be returned to society. host: let's move on. janet on the "washington journal." caller: good morning, sir. host: what do you think about states rethinking their drug sentencing laws? caller: i think it would be great to rethink and stop putting everybody in jail and try to rehabilitate more people. not just the young, old and the young. i think it would work out great. and another thing, too. we need to stop blaming everyone else for the decision that is we make. like the young man that called in blaming president clinton

and all that. you know, you have to put yourself first for the blame and try and rehabilitate yourself. and if you rehabilitate yourself, you can move on and try and help someone else in the situation. so i am for changing the law because why should you throw them in jail and get out and people won't give them a job. i think everyone deserves a second chance. rehabilitation is the best way to go. host: i want you to hold on for a second and respond to this. what do you think about that? caller: well, i think once you try to rehabilitate them, let them get out there and put them on jobs. and if they still need further treatment, let them pay for it. host: ok. let's move on to puerto rico. lucy on our line for

republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about states rethinking drug sentencing laws? caller: i think that -- hello. host: yes. caller: i think that the people that are taking, that are being in jail because of drug abuse, et cetera, we have to start from the top. we have to start by finding these people who bring them inside or take them out of the country and into the states. and from there, then come to the people who are using the drugs. i am calling a person who said that it's not only the hispanics in treatment or jail. we're talking about different types of ethnic populations in

the states also here in puerto rico. host: we're going to leave it there. also, next time put the dog doup. ok? in the richmond times dispatch. back to the phones. nor witch, connecticut on our line for independents. richard, you're on the "washington journal." caller: hi. i appreciate you take mig call. first of all, it is true that if you have money and celebrity and a good lawyer, that laws,

drug laws aren't meeted out correctly because there should be definite sentences and people should serve those sentences. but you hear all the time that they don't. and second, right, anybody knows that rehabilitation isn't the answer. because rehabilitation only works for people that want to be rehabilitated. that's my comment. thank you. host: before you go, so rehabilitation works only for the people that want to be rehabilitated. and does punishment work for only the people that want to be punished? that feel that they're going to get something out of this? or some of the earlier callers said that by sending people in for these long jail sentences, it doesn't necessarily punish them but it trains them on tow

ho be better criminals. host: well, that's an argument. but still, still, the fact remains that people that are celebrities or have good lawyers never see the inside of a jail. but people that are ready criminals in the making usually do. host: jane in new jersey on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: hi. i just want to make a couple points, which is with everything that's going on in wisconsin, et cetera. everyone should know that one out of every seven dollars that the states spend is spent on prisons. this is much more than we spend on education, or any other thing in the country. i think the other point is it's very telling that before president obama came into

office he offered his national site as a question that everyone felt was the most pressing in the country and nearly overwhelming majority said that the most pressing concern was the marijuana laws. and unfortunately president obama laughed at that. and i really think that that was a great downfall because as the drug war has literally ruined the country. when nixon declared war on drugs back in the 70's, college students sat around, they smoked joints. when they made that illegal, then more money was into the drug trade which caused the heroin and the cocaine and crack to be coming into the country. host: how would you like to see the laws changed? caller: well, i think that recently president obama said that the laws on drugs need

summit and to sit down and think about how to do that. and right away, there are many states who have legalized medical use of marijuana and the very first thing that he could do is take manchena out of schedule 1 -- marijuana out of schedule 1 which means it has no accepted medical value. host: thanks for your call. on the front page of the financial times weekend edition this morning, oil millions still flow for gadhafi. libyan regime benefits.

jackson, mississippi, mike on our line for independents. what do you think about states rethinking drug sentencing laws? caller: they need to legalize marijuana but they need to put a stiffer penalty on the crack dealers. they keep advertising it's a black thing. they need to get jobs. host: all right. we'll leave it there. st. louis, missouri. anthony on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: hello there. i was calling in because first of all i'm a product of change. i think because i was able to change some of these people that say nothing in jail [inaudible] when you lock a man up you take their ability for change away

from him. i think during the time that i came up they had not separated church from state so you gave a man something to look forward to, something to believe in. and since they have sep raid what you're not getting at home you're no longer getting in school. so it made it possible for us to grow up and do thing that is we did. fortunately i was one that wanted to change. host: what was instrumental in your change? what do you think that needs to be infused into the system? guest: i think that when you give a man something higher than himself to believe in, you know, something greater than himself, then you promote change. host: and can that happen by rethinking these drug sentencing laws? guest: absolutely. host: more emphasis on rehabilitation than punishment? caller: absolutely. stop sticking these people in jail and give them the things they need to change, then you promote change and see a

different outcome. host: john, you had an op ed in the "wall street journal" this morning we don't need u.n. approval to save libyan lives.

back to the phones. palm beach, florida on our line for republicans. john, you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: what do you think about states rethinking sentencing laws? caller: well, i think that they probably aut to. incarcerating a man would cost more money than to educate and rehabilitate him. i worked for 20 years in the u.s. service fighting drug dealers and cartels and it is starting at the top and working down. but in my personal view, i think if americans just stood up against the drug trade and reeducated our kids, you know, the young man or the man from texas that played the race card, drugs have no bounds. you can go to the remote part of maine you're still going to have the same problems. yes, it's more predominant in the higher unemployment places,

new york, houston, miami. only because it's more lucrative and children are not taught to stay away. i just think education is probably the best way to go. and to incarcerate a man, you make him a better criminal. host: john, you say that education, is that the way to bring down the demand for drugs in this country? because it seems like from our caller that a lot of the punishment follows the demand for drugs. caller: yes. i could agree with that. but -- yes, i do think education is key. if you educate a child, what's going to happen to them at an earlier age, i think when ronald reagan was in, say no to drugs. there was pretty mauch big decline in the education program that she enacted. host: you're on the "washington

journal." caller: i have a few points i want to bring out. i think education, aagree with your last caller. i think education is important. but i also think that the callers that had already been in prison and had served time and were benefiting from a program that helped him get his life together, i think there's a few pieces to the puzzle. it's not just one fits all. i think it's good to relook at the laws but also to realize that if you're going to relook at the laws, to change them, not to forget to fuse what's needed into the community programs into the programs that are set out there fully educating the person for helping them to reenter the community for helping them to -- i think the holistic point here that i'm trying to bring out, it's not just one aspect. i know my own family, there's a lot of people that has a domino

effect. the person gets involved with drugs. it's their choice, it becomes an addiction. it affects the family and their children. but if we look at it holesically, it will definitely have a better outcome. host: crystal in kingston, new york. we're talking about states rethinking drug sentencing laws. american hero sends us this twitter message. more from the phone lines. kansas on our line for others. caller: thanks for having me. i honestly really think that the laws need to be thought out again. they need to be redone. i'm more of a liberal i guess in this aspect that i think that most of the drugs out there should be legalized and i say that because i think that will not only decline the violence that we have going on,

but by taxing the devil out of it you're going to -- you can take that revenue you get from the taxes and put into states and put into education programs for drugs. i mean, people out there i think as a general rule most people know what the effects of drugs have on their system and everything. but still, you see people drunk driving, you still see people drinking alcohol and doing drugs. so i think the education aspect is solid that i think a lot of people are just going to do it to do it. and if they're going to do it to do it, then it should be taxed. host: thanks for your call. next up is michigan on our line for republicans. michael you're on the "washington journal." caller: on the other side of the border in canada, there is a drug that is called sadavax.

it's a squirtable marijuana spray equivalent but because we keep marijuana in a class 1 narcotics state, we cannot import or make our own sadavax because of its -- because of our class 1 state on -- of marijuana. host: from the "washington post" this morning, surge in oil prices send stocks down

brooklyn, new york on our line for democrats. caller: thank you very much. thanks for having me. i enjoy your program. i think education and the junior high school-high school level needs to be uped because obviously what they're doing is not informing the children of the end results of drug yuge and i believe that every school should have more deeper into the subject, almost like a rehab counsel in the school on a regular basis just letting them know what's good for yuge

part. as far as sentencing, repeat offenders, i have to say, people may say it's harsh but i do know people in the drugs trade, and the only thing that they really fear is jail. so they'll keep going out and doing it and doik it until they get caught. they just see being arrested and sentencing. so i don't know if that is the sentencing is too harsh. i think that first time offenders there should be some leanionsy. but in regards to repeat offenders, and for things such as heroin and crack cocaine, no, i don't think that it's too harsh. host: we'll leave it there. two stories regarding the shooting of u.s. airmen in germany on the left from the "new york times" h back to the

phones. birmingham, alabama. jay on our line for republicans. jay, what do you think about states rethinking drug sentencing laws? caller: well, i think it's not stiff enough. let me give you a little

background. i've been in law enforcement, civil investigator for the u.s. department of labor and for the past four or five years i've been teaching as a substitute teacher in the county school system and especially for the past two years short-time alternative school. i've done a lot of reading on this subject really going back years. as a teacher and a parent, you get more of what you tolerate. if you tolerate pot use, you're going to have more of it. as a substitute teacher i can go into a classroom and know what the previous teacher did. by the students behave. if they stay focused on their task or up running around. also, i reference people to about three sources, and thank you for your time. one, is a book that was written in 1988 by james q wilson. a leading psychologist.

crime and behavior. he studied studies over the world trying to predict which factors predict future law enforcement contact. one of the factors absolutely crime runs in families. and -- host: let me get your response. we've got a twitter message from dallas your thoughts on that. caller: well, i think the person doesn't know what he's talking about. let me make this one point. tremendous editorial written by george will several years ago and he talks about this. the headline of the article was, education, you've got to fix problem. one thingive learned over the past five years, children

emulate what they see at home. if they see pot use, they're going to use it. if they see people drinking and getting drunk, they're going to do it. a student was 16 at the time, a fairly smart young man and he wanted to debate me about legalizing marijuana. as i talked to him he claimed that he had been using since 11 years old. he lived with a parent in georgia that had to go live a grand parnt in south carolina and then he moved in with his father who was handicapped and didn't have a sterling record. but i asked him, have you ever quit using marijuana? and he said yeah i tried it one time, it lasted six yeeks. so in essence he was telling me he was still youing it. skwloo thanks for the call host: thanks for the call.

back to the phones, morristown, tennessee. james on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about states rethinking drug sentencing laws? caller: well, i think it's fine as thinking in the proper aspect. the way the laws need to be set up is as long as you're not encroaching on someone else's rights, then no one should be worried about what you're doing. i have been a marijuana user for 30 years. i've been a tool maker for 25

years. i've never had a problem with other crimes, breaking any other laws, doing anything wrong. i'm a family man. i've got three boys. all of them are in college. one is even went to college to be a cop. but you cannot tell grown people what to do. and once you make an 18-year-old kid a felon, he is automatically a thief because he cannot do geth a job doing anything productive. host: we're going to leave it there. for the "new york times" this morning, in their business section, a plan to make it harder for banks to foreclose on home owners.

and a reminer that the national associations of attorney general's annual spring meeting is in town this week and we will have live coverage on monday starting at 12:00 noon on c-span. there will be talking about ways the state attorney general can work with federal officials on tough problems facing the fates. the attorneys general also discussed legal issues

including intellectual property campaign disclosure law and immigration law. again, that's the national association of attorneys general annual spring meeting begins live coverage on c-span begins at 12:00 noon on monday. boston, massachusetts on our line for republicans. you're on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i'm very conservative and even with my conservative approach i believe that it is essential h to consider legalizing this process and just converting it into a business entrepreneurial type situation where the government would benefit significantly from taxes and be able to implement programs without burdning the system with cost of maintaining prisoners. that's number one. number two, that individuals

have an opportunity or choice to use drugs that's on them. and if they need care after, like any other medical problem or health problem, if there's some intervention. if there's need for additional care that they're responsible for the care themselves because it's self-inflicted. third, if individuals in the system don't have criminal records they can continue to be viable employees or candidates for employment in our communities which would enable the employment process hiring process so that these folks don't become part of the system or the underground in our country. host: we've got an e-mail

talking about states rethinking drug sentencing laws. the next call comes from yungstown, ohio on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. first thing i want to say, unless we as people can do something to change, i live in a town that one side of the town all over the city. as long as we let the young people buy and sell these drugs, if you sell drugs and you are caught, don't put them in jail. send them to the country that made the stuff. don't let them back in this country. we would have our death rate go down. find exactly what percentage of nationalities, go to court, most of the people that got that don't get no time in jail. host: we'll lee it there. we want to let you know that this week on "newsmakers," kentucky congressman harold rogers, the chairman of the house appropriations committee is our guest.

congressman rogers is talking about working on short-term spending bills to avert a shutdown of the federal government. and working on spending bills for 2011 and 2012 all at once. and the impact of new freshmen congressman on setting spending priorities in this bit of the conversation that we're getting ready to show you, he's talking about what happens if two weeks pass and congress' short-term spending bills run out again without an agreement on spending for fy 2011. >> i think the republicans goal in the house is not have a government shtdown. that's our overriding goal. we realize how important the government is to a lot of people and to of course the progress of the nation. so we are determined not to have a shutdown. and as long as the leaders are negotiating with the white house, trying to reach an

agreement on the ballots of the year, on appropriations committee we will be a part of that conversation. but also, we will attempt to pass another continuing resolution to give the senate time to act and the negotiators time to try to resolve the spending problems. >> isn't that kind of disruptive to governing, passing incremental spending bills? isn't that difficult to govern and inefficient? >> yes, it's terrible. but we were handed this problem by the democrats as they left the house in january. they had not passed a single appropriations bill all year long. they passed a continuing resolution until march 4, we took over in january. and there lay the problem. that they left us, no spending bills passed. waiting on march 4 to come, trying to put together a way to fund the government for the balance of the year with no

cooperation on their part. and it's a terrible way to do business. and i want to get 2011 out of the way as soon as we can because we're already doing the hearings now on the 2012 budget requests. and i want to do all of those 12 bills before august. host: and you can see the entire interview with appropriations chairman harold rogers on "newsmakers" sunday. 10:00 tomorrow. also on line or at as an ap for your i phone. back to our phones. kelly, tell us what you think about states rethinking their drug laws. caller: this is harley. from missouri. host: all right. go ahead. caller: i think definitely

think they need to rethink the drug laws . host: how so? give me a specific example of what they need to do. caller: well, they need to decrrnlize marijuana for one. -- criminal -- decrrnlize marijuana for one. it's not harm, no harm caused. and all the other, you know, warehousing the drug addicts and then the answer is not build another facility to warehouse them once they're full. that's a big waste of money as far as just sending them to prison. they learn a whole bunch of stuff and then they come out and it's just a big mess. host: we're going to leave it

there. in the "new york times" this morning. that's it for our calls for this first segment of the "washington journal." coming up in 45 mints a discussion regarding the n.f.l. and the players union labor

talks. but coming up next, unemployment falls to 8.9%. we'll talk about that right after this break. you're watching the "washington journal." today is saturday, march 5th. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> president obama's fiscal year 2012 budget for the department allows us to continue to meet these threats and challenges by prioritizing our requirements. >> as cabinet secretaries meet with members of congress over their department budget request for next year watch the hearings on line at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share. it's washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us to talk about the unemployment numbers that came out yesterday. one of the headlines in the richmond times dispatch jobless rate falls, cheer rises. tell us, are you optimistic about the numbers that came out yesterday? >> well, i think it was a very

solid jobs report that kind of confirms the other good news. the labor market is not where we want it to be but we are getting an indication that we are getting closer. i think what's probably better is this seems to be a more stable labor market recovery. if you might remember, last spring we heard about recovery sump and the idea that the job market was going to be bouncing back. for the last three months we've seen a drum beat of steadily improving labor reports and this kind of firms up some of the other data. for example, thursday jobless claims fell to about a three-year low from 2008. so we know the economy is improving and now we have the labor market that confirms our impressions. host: in the "new york times" h 6 there are more jobt in the

private sector but fewer in the public sector. tell us about that and how does that balance out overall? guest: what we're seeing is the private sector taking up a lot of the slack in the job slack i guess. they're increasing their hiring rapidly. and the federal government is actually increased their hiring during the recession. we're seeing the burden of state and local governments starting to reduce their job opportunities a little bit. and that's really come into play in the last year. but overall i think the big stories of the private market because that makes up the vast majority of job opportunities. government workers as a share of the overall labor force is the very small. host: we're talking with rea he hadderman of the heritage foundation's center for analysis. we'll be talking for about the next 40 minutes regarding the unemployment rate falling to 8.9%.

we'll also take your messages via e-mail and twitter. we especially would like to hear from folks who have just gotten jobs or who are trying to find jobs or for the folks who rea, have given up looking for jobs. they are not even counted in these figures. but they are still a significant part of the problem. guest: what happens is you're asked, are you looking for work? and if you are and don't have a job you're considered. that makes up the 8.9% of the people considered officially unemployed. but we also have alternative measures. if you're not looking for work? why? are you too discouraged? that also raises the

unemployment rate a bit. then the broadest measure. if you had a job today would you take it? and those are the measures where we have the true unemployment rate is about 17%. and i think those measures have some worth by being able to sit there and measure some part of job slack. but overall those aren't nearly a as accurate pictures, which is your unofficial measure of 8.9%. host: you put out a memo and folks can find it on your website. in it you write that the labor market recovery is slow and the congressional budget office estimates that the unemployment rate will not fall below 8% until 2013. explain that a little bit more to us. guest: i think first of all in projections, we know this looks to be a very hard slog back to

where we were before the recession. the boards predict the unemployment rates remain over 8% for the next two years. but what we're seing is a bigger threat is servicing the national debt. for about every hundred billion dollars of debt is about 43 billion of interest. and what's going to happen is payment to the national debt is going to take up a larger share of the government and that means we'll have to figure out how to do this. are we going to have to cut more cor services or raids taxes? so it's a little like paying off your mortgages down your credit card balance will save you interest. that's kind of where we are. this report shows that the economy is recovering on its own. and now it's time for congress to take a look back and say how can we put our budget in order since we know the recovery is strengthened, how can we make sure to not cripple ourselves with debt over the next years.

host: our first call comes from los angeles, california. charlie on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i want to voice my opinion. i along with many people in my union or many of the 99ers, we have absolutely no money coming in whatsoever. we have got, we have canceled our life insurance, health insurance, car insurance, just about anything you can possibly cancel without cancel out gasoline, food, and rent. but the unemployment figures for us are just horrendous and you're right, we're not being counted. the figure is probably 18 to 2020% in los angeles. -- 20%. it seems like everybody has forgotten the 99ers and i know we got the extension for 13 months but that's only going to take the people to 99 weeks. and nobody knows about it. nobody is shouting to the heavenses about this. and when the people who are on

unemployment now reach the 99 weeks, they're going to be cut off and then the momes start getting foreclosed and then everything goes down the line. i don't know what we can possibly do about it. we have had eight people go to school for sexumpte, nursing, none of -- computers, nursing, none got jobs after going to school because they had no experience. and most of us are in our early 60s. host: charlie in los angeles. guest: you raise an important issue with the labor market in a couple of different ways. first we see that some job gains are constrained to certain regions. obviously certain states and cities are going to be much more hard hit and sluggish to come out. some states haven't been affected nearly as much, areas of michigan, nevada we can see people hurting. the other issue is that unfortunately older workers are going to have a much more difficult time transitioning back into the labor market.

they're trying to find skills that actually meet the demands of the job market. and that's one of the reasons a lot of people are concerned that we may not get back to the same level of employment we had before, because people close to that retirement age say i'm not going to bother going back. the final note is the other kind of dual-edged sword on the uninsurance benefits. and right now trying to take a really hard look of where we want to continue extending the benefits when this is the third or fourth month in a row the unemployment rate has dropped. and economic evidence has shown that extending unemployment benefits will have an effect of extending unemployment as well. there's an estimate by the bank of san francisco that continuing the benefits has raised the unemployment rate. . .

you will see just what they are doing to the people. until the people rise up and say we are not taking any more, you can push things out there. host: maria, how was your job situation?

caller: i am working for a part- time company. but it is not enough. and then the older workers, they cannot get jobs now because of the age discrimination, a little bit of everything going on. guest: you're one of those people we continue -- consider alternatively unemployed. you are part time, but you wish you had more hours. that is one of the measures we are looking at, is that coming down? this job market shows that we're not where we want to be. it is important to recognize that we need to double the job gains from yesterday, to under 22,000 in the private sector? we need to get that up because we have so many people unemployed right now. it's important for the federal government to figure out policies to help the job market

recover as fast as possible, to help businesses start up, to give them a reason to expand. those of the policies we should be focused on. creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs does not work out well in the past. host: in the "los angeles times" @ -- harness calls come georgia, elizabeth online for democrats. caller: we do need jobs. kato program that and the heritage program is going to help as much. host: why would you think that the heritage foundation is against jobs?

caller: because i listened to all of it. i think they have a very good program. obama would have had a very good program if he had followed what roosevelt would have done. i heard the other day, one of the top senate there is against education on this program. he did not care anything about education. i remember lyndon johnson started the war on poverty, one of the greatest educational programs we have had. i listen to them. every once in awhile i hear some of his stuff that is wrong because i remembered. host: rea hederman, is the heritage foundation against jobs? guest: absolutely not. we looked at what is the best way to create jobs in the

economy. if you look at our website, we lay out a pro-jobs strategy. when need to have a strong, vibrant economy. it would apply to all americans. take a look where we are today, compared to 30 years ago, in how many people have computers and personal entertainment devices. this is a country doing very well. we need to focus on how to continue to improve things not just for ourselves but our children and grandchildren. host: john in rochester, new hampshire, you are on the "washington journal." caller: my comment is, with the declining numbers of unemployment, what are the actual accuracy of the numbers with people actually getting jobs, and unemployment,

underemployment i should say. what are the prospects to increase the educational programs to try to bring back the nation so at least the outcome of the job market bring back the unemployment numbers back to 4% where they used to be? guest: that is the question, how that we get to -- how fast we get back to 4% or 5%. yesterday's job growth was a good start but it would take six years at the rate to give back to where the recession began. that is simply too slow. we need to see job growth over 300,000. we're not seeing people laid off very much. it is harder for people who do not have jobs to go out and find new work. unfortunately, the longer you

have been unemployed, the harder it can be to get there. on education, it is so crucial. a report said that 14 of the 30 fastest jobs -- fastest growing jobs required bachelor degrees. and others required community college degrees. there is some type of advanced education. let's get people in to good high school educations and figure out how to move them all as well. host: last week ben bernanke was in front of the house financial services committee. we will show you his response to a question regarding the proposed budget cuts by the republicans, and what it could do for job growth. we will see what he has to say. >> our sense is that $60 billion cuts spread out in the normal way is a reduction above all --

it does not mean a and a dish -- an immediate reduction. it takes time to come through. it would reduce growth, but we think that given the size, it is 0.1% in the first year, and that would translate into a couple of hundred thousand jobs. guest: he is taking a look and say, the idea of the government spending is basically going to create jobs, create wealth, move the economy forward. this is as an unsustainable debt. chairman bernanke says that we have to get our debt under control. we need to get that under control and focus on long-term finances. just do not do it too soon. indeed you realize that the debt we are incurring right now is racking up massive interest payments. by 2020, the payment on the interest alone will exceed tarp,

and the stimulus every year. that is why it is important to act early now to see the savings in the future. with a smaller deficit, that would generate far more job growth. host: rea hederman is with the heritage foundation and as senior policy analysis there, the founding member of the center of data analysis created in 1987 to provide the public policy community with stated the art modeling, database process -- products, and research assistants. back to the phones, and jim on the line for democrats, you're on the "washington journal." caller: i understand we have a large problem with unemployment, but i believe that you have to fix what is going wrong before you can actually turn around and bring the unemployment up. you turn around -- i know several people, there is a guy

that opened up a store overseas, he turned around, i stood in his store, and i would do in a rare pair for him. i watched him send some girl to a grocery store with a debit card, she bought what he wanted, they should put more investigators into social security, the stuff they're pulling from welfare, and you have got to get rid of the bad before you can have more good. guest: i think that is a point that people on washington focus on. how to reduce the level of fraud that we are seeing. the report came out this week talking about medicare losing tens of billions of dollars a year to fraud in certain areas. good government is incumbent on everybody, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.

the more waste that we can get out, the more we can focus on good government functions. host: a twitter message from a doctor who writes -- guest: what you're seeing is that the federal government is taking less money out of the economy, ballwin less, than private businesses can borrow more. -- borrowing less, then private businesses can borrow more. we'll talk to business owners that confirm about their tax burden. people are forward looking and realize we cannot afford these deficits. tax rates will have to go up at some 0.9. people will spend less, they will invest less, people might even work less, because that has the restraint on current

economic activity. host: a headline in the "washington post" -- that is the article by neil curran. -- irwin. caller: i have two points. in regard to moms, staying home and taking care of their kids, i had a degree in computer science and math. my husband was in finance and had a nice job making half of what i made. of course i cannot go back to school. i have no interest in it. when i see other people having handouts, and i think that has to be fixed. my husband has now lost his

job, and it does not pay -- double his income for that year. we have two girls in college with $90,000. that tax laws also pay for the people who are unemployed. they treated as regular income. so they stay at home moms are not being counted. they want to get back and to the job force. and also financial aid for college is for people who truly saved their money, did everything the right way, and now we are being punished because we have a little bit too much money in the bank. and we have to exhaust all of those funds. i live in connecticut. my husband has a job in california commuting said that we can pay the college tuition and absorb this tax burden and

may be left with nothing after we did everything the right way. guest: people like you trying to go back into the job market, you're called a real entrance. you're looking for the job in the last four ways, you would be counted as unemployment. they are having a tough time finding work. but that will improve as the labor market improves. how the tax code punishes people who save like yourself is a very important point. tax on savings is very detrimental to job growth. if you are actively this encouraging people from trying to save up for college or a new business for a new job, and you are encouraging people to go out and spend immediately instead of saving. saving provides the seed corn for next year's jobs, it boosts the economy, and helps businesses expand. you want to encourage savings instead of punishing it.

host: we have this, it is all about the numbers with a lot of this stuff. in the pittsburgh is that as allows a lot of other papers, jobless rate drops below 9%. but then galloped puts out a report and binds unemployment hitting 10.3%, and underemployed surging to 19.9% at the end of january. explain how the federal government puts up the numbers that says that the jobless rate is below 9%, but the gallup people have on employment has over 10%. guest: gallup is probably serving individual people. the federal government has two service, and strangely they appear to disagree sometimes. when you say it is down below 9%, that is the household survey that is conducted by

calling 60,000 americans. if you say i am not unemployed, -- i am unemployed and i did not look for work. you could be a discouraged worker. if you wish to work full time, that is a different measure. and then the payroll survey will tell you the actual number of jobs created. that is where we get the 222,000 jobs. completely different surveys in the official federal report. host: in the "wall street journal," -- our next call for rea hederman comes from green bay, wisconsin, paul on online for independents. go ahead. caller: this unemployment number is totally of joke.

all of the people who got laid off in 2008, and the first quarter of 2009, they are still not counted. they are still unemployed. and to come up with these numbers, and it is going to get worse with all of the state's problems, all of the budget problems, they are going to lay off a lot of people. you know the mess we're going to do we have going on in wisconsin, talking about laying off teachers. we're going down the sewer. guest: in addition to the possibility of all of those teachers losing their jobs in wisconsin and other places, explain to us how if the government does -- if the congress decides not to refund to the government in two weeks, then significant portions of the federal government will not be working as well. how does that go into the unemployment makes? guest: take the government shutdown. a lot these workers will call

you about the day of the week. normally about the second week, it is not always the second week of the month, and find out are you working, do you have a salary. the way that the government works, they are still salaried worker. they are not working but they have a salary so that would be counted as being employed. some can be unemployed depending on the specifics of the situation. it is important to realize the previous caller talking about all of these people not in the statistics. that is true a little bit. there is a labor force participation rate, those in the labor force looking for jobs. that number is way down than before the recession. it would not be surprising to see that number go up as workers come back. they will start looking for right and as a consequence, we could see the unemployment rate go back to over 9%, and a lot of

people who had dropped out of the labor market come back in. host: dallas, tx on our line for democrats. caller: i am disabled the they are not -- vietnam veteran. i had two points. they wanted to cut some of my benefits. the next thing you know, they're trying to cut our benefits and we did not ask for that. second, isn't it a point that they are deliberately not hiring because they are trying to make president obama the 1-term president? guest: thank you for your service. i do not believe that any businesses are not hiring for political decisions. all businesses are not run by all republicans. so the bottom line is that businesses are trying to figure out, is this a good time to hire a worker, and will this bring in

profit to bring -- make my business sustainable? there been a lot of headwinds in the hiring decisions of businesses. there have been high productivity growth, and that means that each worker can produce more and more and more, simply because of technology. as a consequence, businesses do not need quite as many workers. and that federal government has caused a problem for hiring. they have a great deal of uncertainty by passing massive legislation. they are saying, they do not know how the health bill will affect them, and they will delay hiring. thinkable be obscene in the last couple of months. businesses have determined that the economy has meant -- improved enough, they understand what is going on, and they will be hiring more in the future. host: john on our line for republicans. caller: thank you.

i am a 76-year-old veteran and my statement is we have over 8 million to 10 million illegals in this country performing tasks that we cannot get, like roofing, home workers, and such. and now we're going to start bringing back the veterans from afghanistan. where are they going to work? i thank you very much for my call. guest: what will the next -- the next big thing is always one of the things that we look get. no one can say you will be this industry or this technology that will produce the jobs. who would have predicted that iphones and ipad or anything like that would become one of the big blockbuster products of

the united states? we need to figure out how the people have the best skills going forward and how to encourage innovation in the entrepreneurial community. small businesses create about 67% of all new jobs. how can we encourage small- business owners to innovate and develop new products? they can hire new workers coming in. that is where we want to focus our energy in the federal government's one encouraging job growth. host: in the "new york times" article reread earlier --

it seems like it is a chicken and egg situation. guest: that is a concern that we have heard. business is set on the sidelines trying to figure out if the recovery is real. there is caution for people making sure that this is not another false start what we saw last spring. i think we will see a much more sustained job growth gm now. i think this is the turning point because so many other indicators are nice. we see demand in an effective good, your people filing for unemployment benefits, so these are indications that the job market has turned a corner. we're not going fast enough to put a lot of these people back to work. host: elkhart, indiana, on our line for democrats.

caller: i like to thank you for accepting my call. if you go back to the great depression, it was only steeled by war. if war is what put people back to work again in the great depression, now we're fighting and different type of war were will not put people back to work. our economy is rising, they are saying. it is rising but if you take one under% of america, only 20% is getting money off of that economy. that is the rich people. 80% of the middle class and poor are still suffering in this country. if you look at the gentleman talking about all of these illegal aliens coming into this country, all of the hispanics coming up here on three-year passes into the united states, and they work, and they take that money, and they go right

back to mexico with it. we have too many people coming into this country robbing a. the welfare department -- they know these people are selling food stamps for drugs, alcohol, and giving these people free living, free housing, free food, and they keep making baby after baby after baby. host: we're going to leave it there. rea hederman. guest: we need to make sure that american workers have what they need to compete. we have to focus on two different eras. we need to make sure the education department is as strong as it can be. we need to make sure that people have at least a high school degree and the skills to compete with anybody. they're positive signs that people have been concerned about manufacturing jobs going away. if seen manufacturing adding about 200,000 jobs in the past year. many furniture in an output is strong.

-- manufacturing output is strong. president obama made a free trade agreement with south korea, and we want to get them with panama and colombia, and we can readily find markets abroad. the president was the focus on exports to boost the economy. i think that is a good step in the right direction. host: the "new york times" had this in their editorial page. things could get worse before they get better. in your opinion, what would be the biggest threat among the list of these they run off here,

higher oil prices, slumping housing prices, budget cuts? guest: oil. generally speaking, take a look at the big recessions that we have set had. you see a spike in oil prices. by now, it has climbed over $100 a barrel. we have prices over $4.50 in the d.c. metro area. this really hits consumers hard in their pocketbooks. chairman bernanke is not confront -- concerned about inflation too much, because yesterday we saw it is not showing up in wages. but it is definitely showing up in oil prices and food prices. those of the pocketbook items that hit the american consumers. if they remain elevated, if you could have real problems with people being able to buy other goods. oil is one of the important imports. host: huntsville, alabama, billy on for independents.

caller: thursday, march that third, marks the 13th year since i have been out of prison. in the best of times, people with crimes that they have committed, it is hard to get unemployment. now with the economy, it is really rough. i had to jobs over 2.5 years, both for the shutdown for the economy. my total taxable income has been 100,000 years in about 13 years. -- $100,000 in about 13 years. guest: ex-felons' all into the harder to employ category. some businesses want to fill jobs and take a look get everyone that they can. the idea that you see more job

layoffs, the good news is that we know that overall in the last six months, they have fallen tremendously. that is not good news for yourself but for everybody else. job layoffs is a sign that the labor market is recovering. good news is probably ahead for you and hopefully it is sooner rather than later. host: in the "wall street journal," -- guest: and that is the problem to sit there and say that government spending will lead us out of recession. we were promised the unemployment rate would be around 7.5%. instead, it was 8.9%.

if government spending would lead us out of recession, they are facing a hard time because that economic show that we will have slower growth because the government spending is running down. instead, job growth is predicted to be strong. the gdp rate is considered to be much stronger than the previous years, around 3%. .

guest: i believe he's referring to what we consider visas for bringing in highly qualified people from abroad, people that have advanced degrees, doctors, economists, academics, computer programmers obviously. these are the highly qualified people that are given preferential treatment. and i think that's a good thing that the united states is basically building up our human capital, bringing in some of these specialized workers that can help fill some of the needs that we have seen. right now the united states labor market has a very high demand for highly qualified, highly technical people, and there's a strong argument a lot of the academic literature that basically says that some of the growth and income and equality are because there aren't enough

college grads. so we need to be producing more college graduates in this country. i'm not sure why a company would prefer somebody with ah 1 b visa as sexarppede to steve. companies want to figure out who can do the best job and they should be indifferent where people are from. host: would it be because somebody with an h 1 b is working for or will work for less money than a guy like steve? guest: i don't think so. i think the company should look and say this is the skill set i need to do this job, this is how much i can pay this position. so unless the labor itself is driving down the salary they shouldn't scare who they should pay less. host: our last call comes from florida. caller: good morning. being that the unemployment there's a lot of 99ers out

there not being counted. they're having hundreds of thousands of more people on unemployment. it seems that the government seems to let people fall into welfare. there's a super rise in food stamps, over ah% of people receiving some fort of food stamps and welfare. a lot of these companies they hire minimum wage back-breaking jobs. they don't like to hire you more than three months and you let you go so they don't have to give you health insurance. and they keep hiring me and firing me. what do you think of the ramifications of these false unemployment numbers saying 8.9 when they're higher? and how come the government can't get together and get these 99ers some community service? all these banks, houses, there's nobody living in houses

for months on end. can't we get people getting community work going and have them move into these houses for a little bit and start moving this economy? how come we're having such a problem with the government putting things together getting people back to work? host: we're going to leave it there. guest: i think that 8.9% is the most accurate gauge of unemployment. some of these people who drotch out do show up in the alternative rates. but those are sometimes very suspicious. even when we had unemployment down below 5%, some people would say i'm still discouraged. it makes you wonner how accurate these survey questions are when you're seeing periods of stellar wage growth and people still are saying i don't want to work. there's no question that a lot of people have dropped out of the labor market. we're about 7 million jobs below where we should be. and that's the reason it's

going to take us several years to turn back where we want to be. again, the february jobs report was a good step in the right direction but it needs to be much better in the future to be able to put back a lot of these workers and draw the sides agree to extend the negsshations. less than 24 hours after avoiding a dooms day scenario, the league and its players union extended their window of negotiations for seven more days through next friday in an effort to hammer out a long term deal. we'll be talking about those after this break. but first, a look at some of this week's news through the ice of political cartoonists.

"washington journal" continues. host: michael joins us from the university of illinois on the campus there in urbana and he is here to talk to us about the n.f.l. and union labor talks and have been extended for another week. tell us what got us to this point where they were able to agree to another extension after facing a deadline i guess of yesterday. guest: well, i think the parties were anticipating a deadlock. and then the lockout imposed by the n.f.l. we got here because of the judge's ruling on tuesday that the n.f.l. will not have access to approximately $4 billion of advanced tv money that would have helped them ride out a

lockout and given them some cash to ride out the storm. host: take us back to before that. the end of this particular collective bargaining agreement. what is it that the two sides are fighting over and why can't they seem to come to an agreement here? guest: well, they're fighting over how to split the revenue pie. this industry generates about $9 billion in revenue every year and that ref new pie has been growing. the origins of this dispute go back to the early 1990s when the players achieved free agency but free agency with a form of revenue sharing and caps imposed on teams. so that limits to a degree their ability to negotiate perfectly free market salaries. but we got here over a succession of collective bargaining agreements in which the players had the upper hand in terms of distribution as far

as management thought and management has reached the point where they want a bigger cut of the pie. host: in the "wall street journal" this morning, n.f.l. player talks go into overtime. how serious are these two sides about getting what it is that they want? and are both of them willing to risk losing the 2011-2012 season in order to make their

points? guest: well, that's the fundamental issue. and you ask how serious are they. they're deadly serious. there's a lot of work that they can do up until the point of the expiration of the agreement. on the players' side, they don't want to see that agreement expire because that agreement also carries with it a very unusual feature. it carries with it this federal judge in minneapolis. and he is sort of a, he wouldn't view it this way but in effect he is a third party that can put pressure on either side to negotiate an agreement. and he has been side by side with the parties since they selted an anti-trust claim in 1993. so both sides are extremely serious and feeling intention pressure. they have internal pressures from their constituent groups. they have economic pressures. and there's a great void of uncertainty if they reach the point of impass and the lockout takes place. host: we're falking with

michael leroy from the university of illinois at urbana-champagne. he's a labor industrial relations and law professor here to talk to us about the current situation regarding the n.f.l. and its contract with the owners. if you want to get involved in the discussion, by all means give us a call. you can also send us messages via e-mail and twitter. the headline in the sports section of the "washington post" this morning, n.f.l. talks extended again. they've got a quote from the executive director of the n.f.l. players association.

at this point, do you see them being any closer to getting to this deal? i mean, beyond splitting the billion dollars that seems to be in question, are they any closer to nailing down some of the other issues that seem to be driving them apart? guest: well, nobody knows that answer except the people directly involved in the talks. but indicators are both sides are making movement. typically what happens is the mediator will caucus privately with the parties. they're not probably going to meet face to face in part because that will lead quickly to friction. so typically a mediator will separate the parties will separate back and forth. we would not have gotten to the seven-day extension if there wasn't some indication of some give and take.

so what that give and take is is not exactly clear but there is movement. and once there's movement there's substantial hope for a settlement. host: tell us exactly what is meant by the term lockout. guest: the lockout means that the employer is invoking a work stoppage. it's the reverse picture of a strike. if we think back to 1994, when the baseball players went into their season without a contract, that sort of frames our thinking. the players did not have a contract. they talked to management. eventually they went out on strike when they could not close the gap and then the season was halted on approximately august 12, 1994. baseball was in play for the rest of the season. that's the -- the contract is exiring. they don't have to lockout the plaring. but then the bargaining power would shift to the players. and if you use the baseball

strike, pick the time when the players would have maximum advantage. it's going to be late in the season when interest is peaking. and then if they were to follow the script of the baseball players association, they could go out on strike at that point. so the lockout is a way of management saying, look, we're at a point where the contract is ending. we anticipate a stoppage. and frankly we want to put the pressure back on you to give us concessions. host: the n.f.l. players association is considering decertification which would mean that the n.f.l.-pa no longer represents the players as a bargaining unit but would transform from a union into a strayed association. why would the players want to decertify? what does that mean and what kind of bargaining leverage does that give them? guest: first, that never happens in any kind of labor management situation where a union voluntarily decertifies itself so that it can position itself to file an anti-trust

lawsuit. this is a unique setting. what makes it unique is the fact that you've got an industry that depends for its survival on restrictive labor rules. labor rules that in effect spread talent across all the teams in the league. picture a world where you didn't have any kind of salary cap revenue sharing, you had perfect free agency. the rich teams would outbid the small market teams and you would have unbalanced competition. host: like major league baseball. guest: exact lifment and that sets up a situation -- and by the way, with baseball you still have restrictions on free agency for the newer players. but getic back to the n.f.l., the bottom line for the players association is if they can't get what they need or want at the table, they then want to go forward as individual players. they then want to say that salary caps, that revenue

sharing restrictions, that deals between the tv networks and the league, that forward money to the league to ride out a labor dispute, all of these are restraints of trade and they're therefore subject to the anti-trust law, the sherman act. and this tactic in fact worked for the players after they lost their strike in 1987 ofment so they'reberoing a page from their playbook. the way they're changing the bay plook is saying before we lose in a work stoppage let's beat management to the punch. if we can't achieve our objectives we will decertify. that means individual players can go forward, file anti-trust lawsuits. and from the union's perspective, even though they in theory don't exist, their players would have a chance to appear before a federal judge and get an injunction, a court order to stop and picture a

restrictive practice. and that in turn is designed to increase pressure on management to come back to the table and concede on its part. host: we want to show you some facts and figures before we start taking calls. this from the "wall street journal". the owners receive $1 billion expense credit from the annual revenue. that's tauf top. and then the players get 60% of the estimated $8 billion in remaining annual revenue. now, according to the labor relations today.com, the n.f.l. has filed charges with the national labor relations board on february 14, 2001. the n.f.l. filed an unfair labor practice charges against the players alleging that the union failed to bargain in good faith and accuses the union in engaging in unlawful surface

bargaining and anticipate tri refusing to bargain. we'll continue that conversation, get more of an explanation regarding that. let's go to the phones. canton, ohio, home of the national football league hall of fame. james on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i would like to know if the football owners consider the increased value of their franchise in this bargaining agreement. host: what do you mean? caller: i mean, if their franchise grew up $1 billion every so often, that ought to be considereded income. it ought to be on the barging table. guest: well, the players are cognizant of that. from the players perspective, they have created all the wealth that the league enjoys. and the caller is right, the

value of these teams on the whole has increased dramatically. the other side of that coin though is that their expenses have grown too. many of these franchises have built stadiums, sometimes with public funding, sometimes private, sometimes a mix. but their costs have gone up as well. but in any event, they can talk about that at the table. the reality is that particular element is not directly a subject of bargaining. host: kneel on our line for independents in florida. you're on next. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i've got a curious question. to me anyway. in comparing all the operations that you are discussing here and the valuation of it, how much money is totally involved. and then comparing that to like the psychor league in europe, for example. is that any kind of similarity? is there thatch money?

and do they have similar protections that we have? and these guys are highly specialized athletes. why couldn't we bring some of the athletes in from europe on the same scenario that that sexaurpt programmer from detroit was -- computer programmer was involved in? it's a different game. the similarities. i'm curious about that. and just how much money is involved. host: thanks for your call. professor. go ahead. guest: well, that's a really interesting comparison. the long story short is the sides aren't discussing that or anticipating that. i think what the players are concerned about though is the prospect of a lockout and then the resumption of games with replacement workers that hasn't been talked about in the news and i don't know that the league would go forward with it. they do have a right, as strange as it may seem, to lock out players and then in support of their bargaining position to resume opposition with replacements.

there would be a tremendous risk in that and that is just the quality of their product. can you call that a major league sport any more, professional sport. in 1987 that's exactly what the n.f.l. did albeit they did it after the players went out on strike. so the caller's idea that there is a potential pool of replacement workers out there, that's a true statement. there are plenty of players who are just at the edge of making it on a to a pro team and they don't succeed and they potentially could fulfill that void. host: the number $9 billion has been bandied about. explain to us what's involved in this $9 billion. is it money that owners take in at the gate and tibet prices and parking or -- ticket priceses or does that include the contracts as well? sf guest: it appears that it includes everything. it's a gross revenue figure. so everything you mentioned and more. it's corporate sponsorships,

it's billboard ads in the stadium. and probably a host of revenue sources that we don't even recognize as ordinary fans. it could be licensing. from their product, their sports wear and so forth. but as i understand it, that's a gross revenue figure. it is the business. it is the n.f.l.'s gross revenues, their total take. host: next up, indiana. john on our line for republicans. turn down your television. caller: how you doing, guys. my concern is i love football. i'm a football fan, been a football fan all my life, even played some football when i was in school. i make $606 a month on ssi because i cannot work. and these guys are getting billions of dollars just to play catch football. i'm wondering, the economic crichese that we are in, in america, why can't they do nate

some of that to help the poor out? because they've got billions of dollars and millions of dollars, and their lifestyle has so, they go out and buy these brand new cars. i have got a car that can't even hardly run but i'm struggling and we're talking about bringing people from overseas to play this game and get millions of dollars. i would like to hear your response. host: well, i understand the frustration behind that. and it comes down to what the labor market will provide these guys. you said you're a life long fan. many of us are. and we feed that beast. and while we feed the beast, we grumble and i think rightly so that these players fritter away a for tune, some of them have lifestyles that are less than commendable. and you look at them when they're 40 or 50 years old and they don't have a penny in their pocket. so the frustration behind that question is surely

understandable. but as long as you and i tune in the game and as long as we pay to see the sport and buy a ticket, we're going to contribute money to that $9 billion figure and we're going to grow that figure and the players are going to sit at the table saying i've got a three-year career, that's what it comes down to on average. my body is wrecked after that and i want my cut of the revenue. host: we've got a twitter message from j 08 your thoughts on that. guest: there's truth to that statement. there's surnt for that and a lot of serious questioning about how and why that's occurring. but that's water over the bridge at this point. the parties are not talking about that. the parties are talking about the economics of the sport today. they're talking about the

expiration of their labor agreement, they're talking about the ruling, about their issues, about all those things. the caller has a great question and it's an interesting question that municipalities and county governments, states governments have to think hard about. but that's not something that these folks are looking at today as they're looking at a seven-day extension to their labe air greement. host: our next call comes from north carolina. curt on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i just want to ask the question, number one they're trying to talk about compplementing a rookie wage scale. and as we already know that the contracts are not guaranteed anyway. so say if a rookie is supposed to get $50 million over 5 years, my question would be, ok, so now we're going to give this rookie $20 million over 5 years but are we going to guarantee the contract of the -- of what we would call the veterans? that's the real slippery slope

when we decide to go in that direction right there because if they can't get their money up front, what guarantee is there for them to get their money on the back end? guest: that's a great question. that's exactly the kind of issues that the parties need to confront here. and i think what's interesting about where we sit today with the judge making a ruling and with the prospect of the players decertifying, hype thetically if they do decertify and then they go down the anti-trust path, the conversation that was just put forward by the callerser, that can't take place. so the caller is talking about ways to structure contracts, guarantee income for players, limit rookie salaries. those are matters that are on the table. the mechanism that you use for putting a limit on, giving that money perhaps part of that money or all of that money to veterans, that is the meat and potatoes of collective bargaining. host: is there any other major

league sports in the u.s. right now that has as part of its agreement a limit or a cap on how much rookies can make? guest: well, the nba has a similar feature. and there are all sorts of ways that you set caps and then there are gimmicks around the cap with signing bonuses and so forth. so even if you look at the labor agreement, when you look at how deals are negotiated there are ways to move around those features. and i think that's the frustration that the owners are bringing to the table. they're essentially saying save us from ourselves. we can't say no to a star rookie who is a top five pick and we give the guy 70, $80 million and he is a bust and we're out that money. so players association, why don't you agree to a limit. and the players association says that's your problem that's not our problem.

host: next up is green bay, wisconsin, marsha on our line for independents. you're talking with michael leroy, labor industrial relations and law professor from the university of illinois. caller: good morning, c-span, good morning, professor. sir, a two-part question. would you speak to the unique ownership arrangement of the green bay packer franchise. and second part, do you think it would make any difference if more professional teams, regardless of the sport, were publicly owned as opposed to privately owned by a single individual of family et cetera? host: before you go, do you own stock in the packers? caller: this family has four shares. they will be part of the will. host: what's the current value of a share for a green bay packer stock guest: well, actually, there is no value. we don't get dwends, we are not

allowed to -- dividends, we are not allowed to sell the stock except back to the green bay packers. you can't -- it's not publicly trade ed or anything. the fans own the team, and you could say it's a partnership arrangement. we take care of the team, they provide us with super bowl victories. host: well, you probably are the wrong person to ask about this. but what happens if there is a lockout and this extends into the season and there's either a shortened season or there's no season at all? are you going to be likely to come back and support the packers in 2012 if they're not around in 2001? guest: first of all, a facetious answer. yes, i would because i have dead relatives that would strike me dead if i ever changed my amlegions, but i'm old enough to remember the shortened season in 1982. what did it do? it broke my heart. were we still packer fans?

yes. i would like to think we would always be kind of in the blood as it were. but yes. because you see not only do we own stock. we are lucky nouf have season ticket options. now, short of the grand children not being able to afford college, i feel i not only own a piece of that team and therefore have a right to criticize whom ever, but i make arrangements on our budget to pay for season tickets. will i be a fan? yes. if there is a lockout will i be sad? i will be the first one sobbing into my whatever. but yes it won't make any difference to my allegiance, my husbands, my children, my son inlaws, and i would like to think we are raising the grandchildren properly also. . .

exactly how that force gets filtered in the bargaining table when there is one team, we will see how that works. probably not to a great extent. my guess is that we but have a different kind of atmosphere the

bargaining table. host: what kind of pressure is there on the two sides, the owners and players? let me know if this is the correct analogy. these guys produce a drug, let's say, and the fans are addictive to this drug. the players are the producers. the owners of the distributors. no one is talking about the effect on the fans, on the consumers. they're talking about the distribution of money. it does not seem like there's any real concern from either the players or the owners on the effect of the fans because they know that even if there is a lockout that they will be back at the end of this lockout craving this product. guest: i can work with your analogy. to further the analogy, if we

have a pharmaceutical company, we have a patent on our road. that patent expires after a period of years. that is a dilemma for the players. their longevity in the lease expires sooner rather than later. the average career in the nfl is 3.5 years. if we had a lock out next year, someone loses one third of his career, statistically speaking, which is a huge price. that is the pressure on the players. even the you do not have the same clock running against management, they still have to pay bills, the stadium, having difficulty with their networks and the deals they signed it they do not get a labor agreement, and this goes on and on. the clock is running on both parties and the pressures are intense. use that -- you asked about the fans come the end user of this product to are addicted.

that is a neat way of putting it. having said that, they are bargaining in the context of the national labor relations act. within that law, there is a section that obligates the parties to bargain in good faith over wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. see if the fans coming users, or consumers appear in there. you and i are not in that discussion. they will not talk about us directly. indirectly, however, they are thinking about the fans. not only the loss of games, but they are cognizant of what is happening in their history. marcia spoke about how said she was after the shortened season. she said she came back reluctantly. it takes years for a sport to recover.

that is the hard part to calculate. if there is a lockout or a shortened season, does the league and get back to $9 billion next year? not only will it not get back immediately but it will take several years for them to get back. in some ways, they are never the same. that is the greatest risk or peril that both sides recognize as they embark on the next seven days of negotiation. host: from the university of illinois in their bonnet, ill., is professor michael lowe royal -- in urbana, ill., is prof. michael leroy. caller: buy season tickets are out in the new section. it is 200 of dollars per ticket. i am required to buy the pre- season becasue they -- because

they are so expensive. thatimpossible to sell game. the commissioner said that the pre-season is not a good value. do you think the pre-season will be reduced? host: you have a 16-game regular season package with 4 pre- season? pre-season cost is the same as regular? caller: yes. the regular season games i can sell no problem but no one will pay $212 per ticket for pre-

season so i'm stuck. host: professor? caller: -- guest: even though your situation is genuine and understandable, they are not talking specifically about whether the fan can sell preseason tickets are not. do i think there will be a deal with the preseason is a shortened or games are added? i think that is a real possibility. there are several major issues on the table here. you're looking revenue-sharing. what is the cut? what is the split? you're looking at how you even calculate the base on new spending that money. then you are looking at some restriction on ricky money. then you are looking at an apparent issue of human growth hormone testing. then you're looking at what is the definition of their regular season.

i'm suggesting that when you have four or five major issues on the table like this and you have a highly skilled mediator then you get into conversations about making trades. your guess is as good as mine. they get one more regular-season game and they come off of their revenue split halfway which is a possibility. my hunch is that there will be movements and fewer preseason games and the fans will ask for more money to put their bodies at risk for those regular-season games when the hits are harder, injuries are greater, and so forth. host: louisville, kentucky, on our line for democrats. caller:, like to know about the retired players and veterans.

are they in the mix of negotiations for health care and their pension at all? guest: i do not have firsthand knowledge of that. there are indications that they are in the mix. there is already a disability and welfare program that they have bargained for in the past which is a platform for them to continue that discussion and make improvements. it would seem that in the light of the increased publicity about how harmful football is in the long term for the body and the mind and how debilitating that it is that the players are likely at the table seeking improved benefits for retirees. that is that a different legal footing than seeking benefits for current employees. the parties are permitted to bargain about that.

there's a current provision for that. one can imagine that the players association is seeking significant improvement. host: houston, texas. go ahead. caller: good morning. let me applaud my president for being a man and standing up in. football is a luxury. those people like making that kind of money, but i tell you what. it did not play, i will be out in my backyard watching my kids play or throw the ball around myself. they say that this country is in today that the ball does not support enough meaningful jobs for us to even be concerned about.

it would be a good idea for us to go back and get some of this obesity out ourselves and clave some sports in our own backyards. that is what i have to say about it. host: the president says he will not get involved, but further down the road, a professor, do you think this particular situation may generate some new legislation for a capitol hill regarding the administration of collective bargaining agreements particularly in between owners of major league sports teams and their players? guest: to get back to the caller spoke is about the president's declaration of not getting involved, i think that is an astute observation. the federal government is not to take a side either for labor- management. president clinton during the lengthy strike and deadlock between players and management in that dispute, although he did not get directly involved, he

opened the white house to negotiators in december of that season and he started to make public pronouncements. the president has the bully pulpit and can make even the slightest suggestion over what is fair, good, or nudging the parties in one direction may be crossing the line. the president does not have authority to intervene. the callers on to a good point which is that the parties negotiate. let them have it out, but do not get presidential power involved. will there be legislation that occurs in the wake of this? there could be. i think it is likely. -- unlikely. i think you make an express exemptions and save football is exempt for this with respect to their collective bargaining relationships.

currently, courts have implied that exemption and it is the court's way of saying that you should bargain this and not come to us when you see trouble damages and injunctions. it is conceivable, but unlikely. host: this is in this morning's "the new york times," and he writes that -- back to the phones for our last call for this segment. glendale, ariz. on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: hello.

i think it does help to focus our attention a little bit on the income disparities. the previous caller referred to mandating these, which they could been bothersome. i wonder if the negotiation would be affected if we restored the tax rates for those we had. if we had a 90% tax rate, would put americans back in the same economic about a little better? 0 the parties are looking at that in a that is an interesting proposition. how lawmakers came to that issue just as the calendar year ended last year in december and the net effect of it was that in general that we are not increasing tax rates. we're going back to the 1950's

and the high tax rate, the marshall tax rate on the super wealthy and comes certainly is an option for lawmakers. i think the caller's implication is that money could go for the public good instead of having to squabble about owners and football players dividing $9 billion. let's let the public share, if you will which is an interesting thought. that is why we have a democracy and lawmakers can intervene if they think that is the way to go. the reality is that it is rare that lawmakers intervene with any particular private labor dispute. host: michael roy is a professor at the university of illinois at urbana, champagne and is currently working on a boat called a "collective bargaining in sports and entertainment." thank you very much for being on "washington journal" this morning.

we will take a short break. when we come back, and discussion on medicaid. today's saturday, march 50. -- 5th. cracks and mighty american history professor is on a book to the's "indepth" and has written several books on the civil revolution. her latest, "ratification." join our 3 are conversation with pauline maier at noon eastern on sunday. you can watch previous programs on booktv.org. >> i find more and more the behavior of professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they want hundreds of millions of dollars from these

communities and yet they really do not participate in the problems of those communities. >> this sunday on "q&a" sally jenkins on the intersection of the intersection of a sports and public policy. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, the 150th anniversary of abraham lincoln's first inaugural address and his oath of office reenacted by an actor with remarks by harold holzer and we will go to s st. and visit the home of woodrow and edith wilson. author christopher bright talks about why eisenhower, the cold war and the buildup of our nuclear arsenal. american history tv on c-span3 all begin every weekend. you can get the full schedule on c-span.org/history. >> president obama's fiscal year

2012 budget for the department allows us to continue to meet these evolving threats and challenges by prioritizing our essential operational requirements. >> as cabinet secretaries meet with members of congress over their budget requests for next year, watch the hearings on line on the c-span a video library. search, watch, and share. washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: meghan mccarthy is the national health care journalist and reported this week in "the national journal," that have been locked in a familiar dance over medicaid. tell us about this dance. facing ae states are really challenging fiscal situation. medicaid makes up one of the largest drops on state budgets.

states were required to maintain their eligibility rules that they established in 2009 and now they are asking the government, democrats and republicans, if they can loosen those eligibility rules to make the programs less costly in their budget. host: the governors were in town last week meeting with the white house and some people on capitol hill. were they able to get the message across that they're not going to be able to continue to fund these medicaid programs to much longer? guest: medicaid really dominated in the health-care news world. it is clear to the obama administration. president obama interested in his speech to the national governors association. he did ask kathleen civilians, the secretary of hhs -- kathleen

sibelius, the secretary of the hhs, to come up with solutions that are acceptable for the governors and the administration. host: you wrote that republican and democratic governors are equally exercised about rising medicaid costs but are divided over how washington should respond to them. break it down for us. how do the republican governors want to deal with inverses the democratic governors? guest: republicans have gone back to an idea that has been around since the 1990's. they want to convert the medicaid to block grants. they want to get funding from the federal government on a quarterly basis and matches your percentage, on average about 57%, coming from the federal government. republicans want to get that in the block grant which would give them more control over who gets

to sign up for medicaid and what services are offered. right now have to follow in lot of rules from the federal government. none of the 22 democratic governors have asked for a block grant. they want wiggle room within the rules to help control costs. some examples they use is washington state's medicaid director would like to charge higher copays for brand name pharmaceuticals to encourage people to switch to generic drugs which could save their programs lot of money. host: we're talking about medicaid and state budgets with meghan mccarthy of "national journal." if you'd like to get involved, give us a call. the states are seeking for the loopholes in the federal regulation in order to figure

out who exactly should be enrolled and what services should they be getting. what kind of loopholes might they be able to work out? guest: kathleen sibelius has sent letters to the governors explaining what will go run they have under the current law. some of the things she laid out is that they could change some of the benefit packages and they are allowed to and some optional programs that they may have started over the past few years to cover childless adults or pilot programs. they can adjust the premiums that they charge to different beneficiaries. those were the three big changes the administration said states could have. they're looking for, i would say, some different ways to incentivize medicaid enrollees to spend less money. republicane right

and democratic governors to pastor washington this week for their annual conclave expressed similar frustrations but the burden imposed on their state budgets by medicaid. the giant federal-state health care program for the poor and elderly, the article goes on to say --

how much has really changed t regarding with the governors can ask for and can expect to receive given that the house is now run by the republicans and they have a greater say in what happens on the senate? guest: it is about as far apart as the house is right now. what we saw the governor's doing last summer was lobbying washington hard for extended coming increased federal help. in the 2009 stimulus bill, the government increase the matching rate they gave to the states for federal funding in medicaid.

once those expire, the democratic and republican governors will be asking for that $16 billion in extra medicaid funds. that has not been brought up by a single governor since republicans took over the house. host: our first call from shreveport, louisiana, on our line for democrats. you are on the meghan mccarthy of "national journal." caller: my concern is really the so-called obama healthcare which pays a part of [inaudible] what is your take on that? guest: the health care law does address medicaid and keeps things in the program. and expands coverage to childless adults making 133% of

the federal poverty line. they do take up 100% of that cost until 2017 and then they reduce it down to 90%. it will significantly increase the enrollment in medicaid. they have said that they will now take on most of those costs, but how much it will cost the states really varies. republicans and democrats have very different estimates of how much will ultimately cost. host: leesburg, virginia. you are next on "washington journal." caller: obviously, this is the democratic governors against the republican governors and i think in this administration this discussion will not go too far. my question is, did the republicans want to take over medicaid in their states? did they figure that they can handle where the money and

everything will go better than the gigantic bureaucracy of our government to being included in this? guest: i would say you have there talking point down. republican governors definitely argue that they would be better suited for finding savings on the state level. gov. barbour of mississippi says he does not want to kowtow to government to make changes. democrats counter the republican governors may say they want to find savings, but they will do that through cutting a lot of people from the medicaid program and reducing benefits. host: some facts and figures regarding medicaid from "cnn money." one in five americans gets some kind of medicaid benefits. the federal government pays 57% of the state's medicaid expenses.

medicaid costs 16% of state budgets. drug costs totaled $7 billion a nationwide in 2009 and is projected to grow by $1 billion this year. how much medicaid funding is there in the current resolution and what concerns are there among governors, the states, and recipients of medicaid that there may be additional cuts to medicaid and in order to pass the next continuing resolution? guest: medicaid funding is most the mandatory said it is not impacted as much as other federal agencies. programs may be cut during the spending debate, but cms is scheduled to take a big hit in the 2011 spending plan and they may lose employees or will not be able to process things quickly. if there's a potential government shut down, that could impact medicaid and medicare for

the party contractors that end up paying claims to providers for both of those programs. they would not be funded if the government shuts down. host: st. clair shores, mich., joe on our line for independents. you are on "washington journal." caller: i had eight question on entitlements. a lot of senior citizens are going to be collecting social security sound. that -- social security soon. they may collect 20% or 30% more than they ever put in. then they want to talk about paying entitlements for education for young people, pell grants, student loans, and the problem is, in my view, from a lack of education among poor people in general and in this

country. if you increase education -- to have a master's degree in, you are not going to need your social security or are going to have to rely on that or your medicaid. all of the seniors complain about entitlements for the younger people are going to be collecting their entitlements for the next 30 years. the young people will be paying into it because they are uneducated and poor, too. guest: i am no such expert, but i think the concerns over entitlement programs have become a big talking points on capitol hill. the president's fiscal commission addressed it, and i think it is something that will be going away anytime soon. as far as educating people about entitlements and how much they are needed in the country, we will be hearing a lot more about that from washington. host: houston, texas, on our

line for democrats. you are on with meghan mccarthy. caller: my concern is right now with the the cuts come and work for a school district, but the cuts we're seeing now with a lot of teachers losing jobs, there are a lot of educated people losing their jobs because the money the state to down receive is really hurting them. my concern with medicaid and all of this is that there are a lot of elderly people who have paid into it and they're a lot of people who did not, but at the same time, they still expected, too, because they still pay into it as the work. there are hard-working people that are not reaping the benefits and there are a lot of the people losing their jobs because of the money they did not receive. host: is there more incentive on

congress and the state governments and everyone involved in trying to create jobs to put people back to work regarding those who are unemployed to put a greater strain on medicaid? guest: definitely. medicaid enrollment has gone up by about 8 million people since 2007. there is some research that shows up for every percentage point decrease in unemployment, you get about 1 million more medicaid beneficiaries. some of this would tie in with arguments over bending the health cost curve. if people lose their jobs and cannot qualify for medicaid, they will be uninsured theoretically and that would increase health care costs because they will go to the emergency rooms if they do need medical care and then passing those costs onto privately insured people.

host: is there a time limit that you can be on medicaid like unemployment for the 99 weeks? is there a cut off after which you can no longer collect medicare? guest: it is determined by income eligibility rules. it is for mostly elderly, disabled people or children, or parents who are pregnant. not a lot of childless adults qualify right now. some states have pilot programs, but that is what the health care law is really trying to get that, covering the childless adults that make a certain income and cannot get insurance right now. host: florida. theodore, you are on "washington journal." caller: how are you doing today? i am disabled. i am in between.

i get $949 a month. i do not fully qualify for medicaid, but they give me a share of costs in florida which is like $740 a month or something. in order to qualify for that, by medical bills for a month have to be over that then all of it is taken care of. if it does not go over that and my bills or $500 or $600, that is more than half of what i get her month. it is -- what i get per month. it is hard because i have back injuries, heart problems, and take like 17 medicines per day.

if it were not for part d, i would be sunk. i do not always have the money to pay medical bills. host: we will leave it there, theodore. guest: would you bring up highlights the fact that medicaid covers about 40% of long-term care coverage in america. a lot of people on medicaid are like yourself and need long-term care, possibly in a holler facility. that is a piece of the health care law that could potentially help people seeking long-term care which is called the class act. is it voluntary insurance program that you would start paying into and would eventually get some coverage from that

program. there have been some problems with it, so the added ministration is currently trying to work that. host: meghan mccarthy has a big issue in the current -- has an article in the current issue of "national journal. the government is telling the

states that they have to make the program available to more people in the states, but it is not providing them with more money until further down the road? guest: right. in 2014, the federal government would pick up 100% of the tab for three years. until they get to that point, they still get their regular federal match. the rest of the money runs out in june and that is what the governors are worried about. when they have to write their fiscal 2012 budget, they will not have the money to fill that hole that the federal match billed. host: conn on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you very much. a quick comment. it is unbelievable to me that you have to have a waiver to

have a higher copiague for a generic forces and the equivalent brand. -- you have to have a higher co- pay for a brand name. second, you think the disabled program is demonstrably better through managed care or fee-for- service -- do you think the disabled program would be better with managed care or paper said first -- fee for service? guest: on obama being genuine, it seems like they believe the obama administration is trying as best as they can within the constraints of all to give states as much wiggle room as possible. one thing that would highlight that is the fact that the states are now allowed to change the premiums that they charge medicaid enrollees which they

were not allowed to do under the 2009 stimulus law. of course, there would be a counter to that that this is a way to deflect criticism. medicaid state directors have also said that the different pieces that the administration is letting them move around will not be enough to fill the budget holes. as for your second question, managed care versus fee-for- service? i do not have an opinion directly on that, but there is a big movement in the health policy to move away from fee- for-service payments and to find a more cohesive and accountable payment that is global and covers patients among multiple providers. host: oskaloosa, iowa. caller: i have two questions i would like to ask.

medicare part d went up and now $25 the 3rd year. year 4, $47. what is medicare not control that instead of the private insurance companies? -- why does medicare not control that? people have these exclusions that they cannot walk and everything. the guy told me there was a 10- year guarantee on his scooter. after five years, they gave him a new one. they could save all of the money there. guest: for the first part of your question about medicare and coverage, medicare part d was established under the republican

congress a few years ago and it did give control and the government still pays for the prescription, but the private insurance companies are the one to negotiate those drug costs. i cannot speak to why your premium has gone up that much, but in general, there has been cost savings under the part d program. as far as medical equipment under medicare, there has been a lot of discussion and included in the health care a lot is a way to hopefully bring down the costs of large pieces of medical equipment by setting up competitive bidding programs among durable medical equipment. that is the official phrase for it. that will hopefully bring down the cost on things like scooters. host: we are talking with meghan mccarthy, the health care reporter for "national journal." she has an article in this week's edition under the

headline "separate corners." prior to joining the "national journal," she worked at the "congressional quarterly" and contributed to cq health beat. she graduated from william and mary. portland, ore., on our line for democrats. you are on "washington journal." caller: i had a similar question wondering about the negotiation of drug costs. the other gentleman had mentioned something about it, by i think in "cnn money" he said it was something like $7 billion for drug costs. is that something that we negotiate a set rate with the pharmaceutical companies? that was a question in the health-care program that obama was trying to get through.

how much is it that the federal government negotiates with pharmaceuticals or are they getting a particular rate under the medicaid program similar to what we have heard conversations about under medicare? i was just wondering about that. guest: most medicaid state drug programs are negotiated by the state. some do participate through part of the -- part d and some states do it all within the state medicaid director's office. one of the things that secretary sibelius' highlighted that states could change before 2014 is how they pay for prescription drugs. there is some room there for negotiation. host: cleveland, ohio, and our life for independents. go ahead. caller: hi.

i have a question about medicaid. you said there were 50 million people who were on medicaid, which is a good percentage of the population. i have an indigent and in a nursing home and i enrolled her in the medicaid. -- an indigent aunt. it was really hard. we had to sell her car and get rid of her life insurance before she was qualified. it is hard to believe there are 50 million people who are not poor in this country. can you comment on that? -- 50 million people who are that poor. guest: a lot of people do have to expend their assets which happens before people go into nursing homes. once the country hit the economic downturn, the enrollment in the medicaid has increased significantly. we are seeing a direct tie between rising unemployment and people joining the medicaid program. host: on our line of republicans

out of conroe, texas. caller: good morning. it is a shock on how this nation seems to be moving away from personal responsibility. no one wants to be responsible for themselves, their family, and they want a handout. it does not make any sense to me. where is the old-fashioned -- do not have any decency were self- respect? host: how is applying for medicaid or medicare advocating personal responsibility? caller: i am talking about things in general. you see these reports about needing money for education. i went to school in a poor neighborhood. i graduated. is whether or not you want to put the time and effort into studying, of buying the rules at school -- and all day in the rules of school. that is what it boils down to. host: statehealthfacts.org say

$366 nationwide for medicaid costs. new york was $49 billion. california was $41 billion. taxes was $23.70 billion. pennsylvania was $17.20 billion. marion on our life for democrats. you are next on "washington journal." caller: i work for a segment of the population that is on medicaid. it is abused. they use it for every, every little thing. if they of the copiague on it, perhaps it would save money -- if they up the co-pay, perhaps it would save money. if they complain about anything, the doctors are and forced to do all of the testing because of

their position. my second comment is all of these people who are complaining about everyone being covered and everyone paying for their medical coverage, of it would reduce the cost to those who have insurance now. you are paying more for insurance, more in property taxes for hospitals -- what am i trying to say? to cover the indigence. everyone have coverage rather than fighting against like automobile insurance, perhaps the premiums would come down. i do not know how to fix ceo salaries and those types of things, but that is another story. that is my comment. , st: mary ann in floriday

thank you for your call. guest: you bring a big point about medicaid abuse and flaws in the program. that is something the program -- the administration has given top priority. there have been several hearings on that and there is a new task force between the department of justice and hhs to root out that kind of abuse. when you bring up raising co- pays to incentivize people to not use care when they do not need it, that is something that some democratic administrations are looking for and it represents a shift in thinking among some democrats to move away from covering everyone and offering everyone to incentivizing responsible use of care. host: next up in indiana, you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning, sir.

my question is all the illegal mexicans come here. a lady gets pregnant and has a baby. then they are all covered by medicaid. guest: i have to be honest that i am not entirely sure about how much eligibility is required to prove your citizenship. if you are born here, children can qualify for medicaid if they need -- if they meet income rules. host: ohio on our line for independents. caller: i lost my job in 2002. at that point, i did not have health insurance. i finally got on medicare in the 2009. you said previously on the show about how the uninsured are

putting a burden on those who are injured and this is a national epidemic. because i had no insurance, i was costing every person who had insurance $1,200 per year. i called rep after rep after senator telling them it is not true. whenever i went to the hospital, whenever i had to take up to $750 worth the prescription month after month, the name on the bill was mine. the name of a check that paid for it was mine. the name on the account that it came out of was mine. when you say that all people without insurance are costing people who do have an assurance to of hundred dollars, that is not only a lie but gave -- who do not have insurance $1200, it is a lie, a damn lie. this is just -- imagine you have

unclean people without insurance costing you all this money. host: thank you for your call. any response? guest: i should be clear that it is not my opinion that the uninsured are raising the cost of health care in america, but you are right that it is a big talking point. republicans would also agree that covering more americans coming getting health insurance more republicans -- to all americans is a goal in improving the health care system and bringing down costs eventually. host: you write in your article that doug porter once more latitude to change incentives in the ways that required the programs patience to get "some skin in in the game."

is there any sort of plan or is anyone working not any kind of legislation that would loosen up these restrictions and allow state medicaid directors like doug porter to use some creativity in order to help spread the money around a little bit more, get more bang for their buck? guest: there is an existing program now in medicaid called section 11-15 waivers. states can apply to hhs for room

to put into place pilot programs that may have those like co-pays and premium changes. we hear that it takes too long to do and it came up in the commerce committee meeting this past week. there is a piece of the health care law that the reporter mentioned -- that doug porter mentioned which is a new office under hhs and is tasked with the drop to find ways to reduce the job of care -- the cost of care. it gives the secretary wide authority to allow for different pilot programs or payment systems for medicaid and medicare if they are proven to reduce costs and increase the quality of care. host: tacoma, washington, on our line for republicans. you are on "washington journal."

caller: i have lived in bad areas and we did not go to work. we get our social security. everyone can get social security right now. you do not have to work until you are 65 or die. you can get it right now for any ailment. asthma, sadness, being overweight. you can get your kids on it, to come and get them ritalin. it is the new welfare. what you do is you do not get medicaid -- use medicare, and just use medicaid. then you get food stamps and then get section 8 and pay $150 a month. have a bunch of kids and apply for both ssi and ssd.

it may take one-three years to get it, okay, even if you are really crippled, but then you have permanent income and you never have to work. guest: as i mentioned earlier, as far as abuse within the medicare and medicaid system, to what i can speak to most knowledgeably, the administration and congress is very focused on that. they found a record amount of abuse in the medicare program, about $4 billion in 2010. there are efforts to prevent people from misusing the federal government programs. host: decatur, alabama, on ally for democrats. -- our line for democrats. caller: we have doctors in this state that are making people, every 30 days to charge $300 on

a urine test and call it lab work. this is a big time operation in this part of the country. we should go look in there. then we have a governor who calls himself a doctor who got rich on the system. i do not see it looking up in this part of the country. host: they are charging medicaid for these lab tastes -- tests? caller: yes. host: independent line, rick. go ahead. caller: i have heard comments about the personal responsibility. . -- responsibility angle. we should go to a person system and hold people accountable from

the top end, the doctor, the suppliers of the services coming to the people in the system. could you address the issue of the intelligence that would probably help and former personal responsibility -- inform personal responsibility such as fee-for-service, raising co-pays, and our medical service suppliers a truly held accountable so we do not have a situation like this where the gentleman from to, of describe where people can just enderle to get the services -- where people can just enroll and get these services? guest: your call highlights that a lot of the costs under medicaid comes from people who are qualified for both medicare

and medicaid and they derive a significant portion of the medicaid costs. some of the medicaid experts i talk to say efforts to hold the federal government programs accountable for working together would really improved costs and bring down the possible fraud or abuse between both programs. host: we have been talking with meghan mccarthy, the health care reporter from "the national journal." you can find more of her reporting on the "national journal" web site. thank you very much for being on the program. i want to tell you who will be on "washington journal" tomorrow. we begin with a republican pollster and author talking about his new book, "