now, "washington journal." in half an hour, congressman mick mulvaney, david cicilline, dennis ross, and ed yarmuth, also the washington post -- awash in post "" -- "the washington post" reporter ed o'keefe. >> i am confident we can get this done. >> we're working together on both sides to try to resolve this. no one wants the government to shut down. >> in the morning, i will check in with the writ tractive staff -- the respective staff of the majority speaker and my team. if we have not made progress, we will go back at it again. we will keep on pounded away at this thing, because i am absolutely convinced that we can

get this done. host: good thursday morning to you. april 7, 2011. that was remarks from the three leaders after the president summoned speaker of the house and senate majority leader to the white house late last night for a 90-minute meeting. the three went to the microphones to talk about their hopes for compromise as the midnight deadline on friday for the expiration of the budget -- continuing budget resolution will expire. all night long, congressional aides were negotiated inside the capitol. another discussion about the priorities of federal spending is about to begin here in washington. we will open up our phone lines. during the program, we will have to talk to members of congress and also ed o'keefe of "the washington post." he will update you on plans in the event of a government shutdown.

our phone lines and our question for you is this -- what is your message to congress about the budget? republicans -- (202)737-0001. democrats -- (202)737-0002. independents -- (202)628-0205. you can also send us an e-mail or a message on twitter. your message to congress about the budget. a good thursday morning to you. "the washington post" is the lead story. the shutdown would be felt far and wide. 800,000 workers in the u.s. could be furloughed. the talks continue as time runs short for talks. as democrats and republicans continue to better -- bicker over who is responsible for the stalemate, senior aides.

to make progress in private to make aides appeared progress in private talks, raising hopes for at least the broad outlines of a pact. that is where things stand publicly on this thursday morning. we're interested in hearing your message to congress. do you want them to stay the course and keep their positions in place? do you want them to find compromise? we would like to hear what you have to say about that. we will get your calls, tweets, and e-mails in just a moment. martin kady, a congressional editor for politico, is with us. what is going on behind the scenes? guest: what happened overnight and will continue today is a

couple of things. they need to agree on a number -- how much to cut. the latest number that speaker boehner has floated is a $40 billion. from what we're hearing, i sense they can come around on an actual number that will get sign-off. the harder part is, ok, we have $40 billion, where does that come from in specific line-item reductions? the social policy riders are super hard for them to figure out. republicans are not going to back down on cuts to planned parenthood or epa. someone will have to blink and give in on some of the social policy riders. host: what is the process -- there are also certain procedural issues. the republican congress made a commitment that legislation would be posted online was sufficient time for members to review it. that obviously would not make the friday midnight deadline. how can they get all of the work they need done by friday

midnight customer what else are the seeds of the compromise to keep the government from shutting down -- friday midnight? what else are the seeds of the compromise to keep the government from shutting down? guest: the house rules are not as much of a hurdle as you might think. midnight tomorrow -- it is hard to get anything through congress that fast, even emergency bills. i would not be surprised if they get anything done today or tomorrow, but they could have shut down for a couple of days. they may stumble into a shut down. someone has to compromise. it seems like democrats are in a more compromising mood than republicans. they keep moving closer to the republican number two democrat started with $10 billion. the republicans were at $60 billion. now they are at $40 billion.

that is a pretty good compromise. host: what would your negotiating strategy be? guest: what is the incentive for republicans to move on their numbers if the democrats keep getting closer? host: two reporters have suggested that the three leaders themselves, barack obama, john boehner, and harry reid, their personalities and how they approach politics might be a key factor this time versus 1995. do you mind telling us about some of those thoughts? guest: in 1995, we had speaker of the house newt gingrich who wanted to prove something by shutting down the government. it turned out to be a miscalculation. bill clinton came away with the political edge and he won reelection next year. in that moment, newt gingrich came across looking like a loser in the government shut down. this time around, the three principal players are not guys

who want to shut down the government. they're more cautious. obama, reid, and boehner are much more cautious players. their political talk to leaders -- they are political calculat ors. they are not bomb-throwers. if you do not want a government shutdown, the people involved not be there. there held back by their constituents -- they are held back by their constituents. host: thank you for bringing us up to date. we will be waiting to hear if they have reached a compromise and to see how the members on both sides react. let's go to phone calls beginning with texas, john, a republican, good morning. caller: this is living proof that socialism works real good until you run out of everybody else's money.

if this is not the biggest ad for getting rid of all of these social problems -- programs, i have never seen anything else that compares. host: you are looking at some of the headlines from the morning newspapers. we will show you those throughout the half-hour of phone calls with you. next call is from evanston, ill., elizabeth, a democrat. caller: the job of the government is to protect the people. cutting things -- the democrats might as well not be democrats. they have not stood up for anything. to cut the epa when we are having a radiation crisis, a cancer cluster crisis, a superinfection coming -- these socialist problems. democrats have given away

everything without sticking up to taking taxes from the richest people in the country, the corporations, and stopping the war. you're cutting things that are essential at that time were they are desperately needed. it just say no -- just say no. where in the world are the democrats? host: from twitter -- joe, an independent from chicago. sorry, i pushed the wrong button. richard, you are on the air. good morning. caller: hello. where was the president yesterday when he was supposed to be at this meeting with boehner and senator harry reid?

he was in pennsylvania trying to get his vote for 2012 instead of going to the budget meeting. host: the president did have a budget meeting when he got back from the trip. he traveled to pennsylvania and new york yesterday and came back around 8:45 eastern time. "the new york times" features the president's trip on the cover page. it was all sharpton's organization's anniversary. "prez zips back to d.c. for budget war." you are on the air. what is your message to congress about all of this? caller: my mom works and the federal building in chicago. people are getting laid off. we will not get all of our bills

paid. a lot of money is being spent. she hasn't gotten her money from the irs. there is not a lot of money coming in. i hope the president will work to try to get the budget going. host: thanks, monique. bill from cape cod, a republican. good morning. your message to congress. color >> take the checkbook and credit cards away -- caller: take the checkbook and credit cards away. let me put this in perspective for those who might be mathematically challenged. if we're talking about the household budget of $10,000, our budget deficit is $10,000. they are cutting $10 out of the budget.

we have all of these people all up in arms and we're not talking about anything. these budget cuts are minuscule. so, what is h -- minuscule to what is needed. thank you for listening. host: from twitter -- richard, anand, independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. as far as the budget goes, if we get out of the three wars that we are currently in, we would have plenty of money to spend on domestic programs. i noticed in the news poll, they have less things like do you want to cut social security or medicare or some other program, but they will not even ask if you would like to get out of the wars to save money.

we should bring all of our troops stationed in these other countries, trying to be the policeman of the world -- if we bring our military home, we will have the money to take care of the people in the u.s. thank you. host: richard references some polls. this is from gallup. the new gallup poll finds americans are rooting for a deal. 58% to 33%, more americans want to avert a shutdown rather than hold out for the budget they agree with. we will show you that more closely. 51% of republicans support that position, but 60% of independents say that we

should agree to a compromise plan, so do 68% of democrats. which leaders are doing a better job on the federal budget dealings? democrats at 83% say that obama and the democrats are doing better. republicans -- 81% said that republicans -- not surprising. the independents are almost an even split. the crucial independents are evenly split on this question. the spending cuts -- democrats versus republicans. do they go far enough? it suggests that, in the april 5 poll, 45% of the democrats in congress do not go far enough,

according to the public. republicans in congress -- april 5 -- 30% say they are going to far. 25% in february said they were going too far. another poll from the "wall street journal," findings from the latest washington journal -- "wall street journal" poll. 60% of democrats are told -- 68% of democrats are told to make compromise. 30% of republicans are told to make compromise. those in the tea party are saying hold fast when they look at these numbers. what is your message to congress on this budget debate? next up is baltimore, phil, a

republican. phil is not there. let's move on to fayetteville, north carolina. caller: good morning. i want to know from your conservative listeners how they feel about the united states military active-duty personnel not being paid. i think this is the true tragedy in our society. i do not know that this has happened before. i cannot imagine that, even -- that these men and women are not going to receive their pay checks. host: it is not clear that they would not. military members may get paid on a delayed basis. caller: enlisted personnel need their paychecks. host: what is your message to congress, then? caller: if you need to make

cuts, let's start by bringing our troops home. let's start by not spending any more money on long-term war without any good outcome. let's focus on real defense of this country and let's pay our military. host: thanks, lynn. next up is raymond from georgia. caller: who just paid for that trip obama thattook? -- trip obama just took? why not cut out personnel and the the white house? -- in the white house? host: a fund-raising appeal from the democratic national committee -- democratic congresl

campaign committee -- that is a look at an e-mail that went out last night from the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee. your message to congress on the budget -- next up, sacramento, good morning to duane, an independent. caller: my message is the same as the twitter message you got. if they cannot pass a budget,

they should not get paid. they talk about spending all of the time, but when they have the opportunity to go ahead and make sure the corporations pay their fair share of taxes, they do not have anything to say. it is time for america to wake up. we're being sold and the river to corporations -- down the river to corporations. host: here is what this front- page story says.

burlington, vt., good morning to you, sylvia. is your message to congress -- what is your message to congress? caller: the democrats and republicans have agreed on $33 billion or close to it, but the republicans want to do fund part of planned parenthood, which would cause -- to defund part of planned parenthood, which would cause more abortions, the irs, which we really need, the epa, which is -- i mean, we need the epa. that is ridiculous. rich man's tax and defense are off the table.

lordy me. what is in the democrats' package? no one has told me. maybe we would be more for it if we knew what it was. host: thanks, sylvia. this is andy an independent in albuquerque. caller: no matter who you vote for, democrat or republican, they act like they will do something different, but they do the same thing all the time. this country is falling apart because you're not living by the constitution -- we are not living by the constitution any more. it is hard to tell which direction we will go as a country. we have to get used to people spending less money in the government. they will have to. there is not any choice. host: another story about the leadership challenges for the leadership and the president.

here is a bit of what it says --

winnebago, minn., bill. good morning, you are on the air. caller: my comment has to do with the caller who was concerned about the military not being paid. the house has a c.r. that would assure funding for one more week and funding for the military through the conclusion of the fiscal year. harry reid has taken the position that he will not even introduced the bill, should be presented to the senate, unless there is some sort of agreement raised. anyone who is going to be blamed for the military not getting their paychecks, it should be democrats and their inability to pass a budget. they went all last year in the 111th congress without presenting a budget. was the president? he was missing in action -- where was the president? he was missing in action.

host: here is the contour of that short-term extension that came out of the appropriations committee. it would fund the pentagon until september 30, 2% over 2010. it prevents the transfer of guantanamo bay detainees to the u.s. and prohibits construction of detention facilities in the u.s. those are some of the aspects of the next temporary continuing resolution that came out of committee last night and is expected to move to the house floor. next is a call from detroit, a democrat. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i never thought i would say this. as a marine, as a person who has worked all my life, shut it down. this is corporate america's message to america.

if americans go for it, sovi be it. i say, please, tea party, please, corporate america, please, neo-cons, shut it down. we need the lesson. host: here is another tweet. next, rochester, minn., paul, an independent. caller: i want to make clear to people who listen to what ron paul has to say -- i do not care what party he is. he is one of the few who deals with the sacred cow of military spending, which is $1 trillion per year in all of its forms. we are trying to rule the world

as an empire, going the same route as the u.s.s.r., bankruptcy. democrats and republicans will not touch that because of corporate profits. wake up, america. thank you. host: paul from rochester, minnesota. this piece caught our attention this morning.

fit the bill, north carolina, up next -- fayetteville, north carolina, up next. caller: they are currently working on the 2011 budget. that should have been passed in october. this was the democratic strategy for them to not pass the bill in october. they could have done that in november, december, even during the first three weeks of january. so, the democrats -- again, it is strategy. they want to shut down the government. host: this your aunt twitter has a different point of view to the same scenario -- viewer on twitter has a different point of

view on the same scenario. next is a call from kansas. chris, an independent. caller: until we do four things -- cut defense, medicare, medicaid, and social security -- we will still have these budget problems for years to come. -term pain right now, long-term gain -- short-term pain right now, long-term gain. host: dennis, your message to congress. caller: good morning. as usual, thank you for the opportunity. i find it kind of silly, kind of strange about this tea party. a lot of people do not realize that the original tea party, when they were in boston, throwing the tea into the

harbor, dressed up like indians -- fast-forward to this so- called tea party today. they are hiding behind certain ideals they say that the constitution would not allow. their very history -- excuse me -- of how the original tea party started -- i find is so ironic and so silly. they were not brave enough to go out as patriots and throw the tea into the water. they dressed up like native americans. i think these people -- they are not crazy, but they are just ignorant of history. one of their darlings, michele

-- i think people will know what i am trying to say. host: what is your message to congress about the budget situation? caller: the budget situation -- i think it would be just absolutely insane to shut this government down for one minute right when our president and the democrats got this economy rolling again. the tea party does not want to see america prosper. host: all right, dennis, thanks. in our program, you'll meet four members of the house of representatives. first, representative mick mulvaney, a member of the budget committee, spent the day in a market yesterday.

he defeated a longtime member of the house in the last election. is there going to be a government shut down? guest: good to see you, too. thank you for scheduling this at 7:30 after that markup went to 10:30 last night. the house has to pass a bill, the senate has to approve, amend, send it back. the house has done that two or three times. the senate has not done anything. if you ask a member of the house, we do not think so. if you ask a member of the senate, i do not know what the answer is. really in their court. host: let me ask about your willingness to compromise on some issues like the policy -- the dollar amount and the policy riders.

where are you on the 2012 budget? guest: for me, individually, i am willing to compromise. as long as we can include the $2.8 billion in this year's 2011 obama ^ a bridge -- obama care and preparation, -- obama care appropriation, i will agree to it. i think it is a reasonable position. host: our phone lines are open for questions or comments to the u.s. congressman. he is here with us for about 20 minutes. let's move on to the 2012 process. you put out the stabenow about your long day yesterday. let me read some of it -- you put out a statement about your long day yesterday. get me read some of it. -- let me read some of it.

well, give us a little more of the atmosphere. this net for televise it live throughout the day. discussion was generally civilized. guest: that is a step up for us. was fun and interesting. it is one of the few times that we get to debate the issues face-to-face. often, members are testifying, not really asking questions.

there is very little debate on the floor. this was actually a lot of fun yesterday. you got the chance to talk about what you stand for and to try and contrast with what the other side stands for. there were between 20 and 35 amendments yesterday. there was only one that passed on a bipartisan basis. with every amendment, it began with, here is where we're want to raise taxes, here is where we're going to increase spending. we have been through the process together. we have spent time together. you have heard the statement that mr. van hollen makes where he supposedly understands how dire the financial situation of the country is, then it is followed up with this when the rubber meets the road. they offer to increase taxes and increased spending. time went by very quickly.

host: important to your success will be selling your principles to the public at large. what do you think about the headlines you are seeing? guest: to be candid with you, i have not seen the headlines. we have been doing this for the last 48 hours. i can imagine that they are criticizing us for being too dramatic. what did harry reid call it on that conference call? that we are radical or extremist. if you cannot be honest, you should not be here. honest truth is this -- you cannot make inroads into the deficit situation until you start addressing entitlements and the military. that is just the way it goes. medicare, medicaid, social security -- the three big drivers of our debt. we have done a good job in the

budget of letting this on the table for the first time in my lifetime. now that lightning has not struck and we have not perished from the face of the earth, it is time to start dealing with this. host: you're a group of several members who are working on an alternative plan that will be released today. is the idea to reduce -- in introducing your own budget to suggest an alternate path to mr. ryan's? what is the strategy? guest: we take -- and this is a landmark document. we want to show people what it would take to actually balance the budget in a 10-year period. it is more. it just is. you have to start dealing with people who are above the age of 55. you have to start raising the retirement age. we're building on the work committee has done and showing people what it would take to balance the budget. you folks want to balance the

budget and we agree. here is what it would take. that is the first step to getting it done. host: last question from me. on the concept of selling this to the public -- these are big issues and there are different ways of looking at programs that have enjoyed public support for a long time. there is not a single spokesperson. you do not have the white house, as the democrats do, to defend your position. how do you change public opinion when you are 1/2 of the legislative government? guest: say what you want about the tea party. there was a movement without any single headquarters or person, yet they managed to change the direction of the country in the last election. we have to rely on the same sort of thing. need the same sort of grass- roots, diverse, -- we need the same sort of grass-roots,

diverse communication. i have spoken to literally thousands of people since we started this process four or five weeks ago. by the year 2055, every penny that we take in as a nation will go to interest. that is the non-partisan congressional budget office number. every single penny of what we take in by the year 2055 coast interest. no money for medicare, medicaid, social security, national defense, you name it. when you put it out there like that, people began to be ready to have the discussions like we had yesterday -- begin to be ready to have discussions like we had yesterday. host: let's begin with your comments. you are on for the congressman. your question or comment? are you there?

caller: yes, i am. yes, i have a question. my comment is -- i kind of feel that -- the democrats,w hen they got up in there, -- when they got up in there, they were trying to fix the problem that republicans had made with taxes. now you have democrats trying to fix the problems, but the republicans blocked them on everything. gives america the distorted view of what is going on -- it gives america the distorted view of what is going on with the budget. guest: i do not think it is factually true that half of america is poor. social security is not a program for the poor.

what we saw offer from the democrats was an increase taxes and spending. ok, i am going to block it. i think that is what we need to do. the stimulus taught us that more government spending does not solve a problem. you cannot borrow your way out of our problem caused by too much debt. think about that. if you're watching this program, the only place it makes money to borrow money to solve the debt crisis in washington, d.c. you and i would not do it. we're trying to it adds a rational thought to the dialogue -- add some rational thought to the dialogue. caller: bottom line, you are bringing in money with taxes. you're pushing a% to 10% unemployment -- 8% to 10%

unemployment. you have shifted the jobs away. i am ready to take social security. bottom line is, we need money. quit sending it everywhere else. haiti -- i am sorry, we cannot help you. africa -- i am sorry, we cannot help you. you cannot balance the budget by cutting military spending and medicaid. you stop spending money everywhere else. you bring jobs back. you reopen trade agreements like nafta. we were told that other smaller countries will start importing products. we're not even making products. you have slave labor. you're filling up barges. you're filling up walmart.

until we start making things here again, we will not have the tax base that it takes to run the country. host: thank you, jim. congressman, your area of south carolina has seen a lot of displacement and change in american production over the years. c what do you say to. aller -- what do you say to that caller? guest: we make a lot of things and we do it extraordinarily well. i toured a plant that makes axles. they recently brought a product line back from brazil. the stuff that we by every single day is not made here -- buy every single day is not made

here. to the larger point -- i get this a lot about not cutting medicare, medicaid, social security, defense. in money to haiti and libya or whatever. here is the truth of the matter. jim, imagine you are making $46,000 per year. imagine that you are spending $78,000. that is where we are as a country. that is what we will do next year as a country. we will make $46,000 in taxes and we will spend a $78,000. we have to figure out how to cut $32,000 for what we're doing. all of our foreign aid budget, all of the money that we send overseas = only about $900. i hear what you're saying. we're proposing that we need to cut everything.

you cannot do this the easy way. we're well beyond just cutting the things that nobody likes and well into cutting the things that we like. i have had people who have said we should not cut pro-life programs. i am pro-life member of congress. i tell them that we have to cut those programs. we do not have a choice. if we do our job correctly, people are not going to like us. for the first time in my life, washington will have to say no. it's the only way we will be able to balance the budget. host: we have about 11 more minutes. please respond to this twitter. -- tweet. democrats are making the case that the rich in the country are not paying their fair share of the tax burden. guest: it is sort of true. clinton balanced the budget and number of ways -- a number of ways. at that point, you had perhaps

the largest overhaul of a social program, welfare reform, which went away in the stimulus program. we had a major overhaul of a major welfare program. we had a major run-up because of the dot-com boom. the soviet union no longer existed. one thing that was stark in the democrats' presentation is it the tax increases on folks who make more than 100 -- $1 million. that does not solve the problem. you cannot tax your way out of this problem. if you took all of the wealth from the wealthiest people in this nation, it would not pay off our debt. it does not work like that. that is how large these numbers are. you have to cut spending. host: next a caller from

massachusetts, joseph. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. i find it highly disturbing that the parties can come together and find an agreement and work out an issue that the people of america count on them to to financially stabilize the country. as a single father, it is hard to get by. jobs are very limited. putting our military in other countries, knowing that their lives are on the line -- the representatives not being able to come to an agreement -- the representatives in the house, whether they are democrat or republican, should take their paychecks and their money and put it into the debt. that would help decrease the

financial debt that we will face in 2011. host: congressman? guest: it's a good point. is the first thing we did in congress, to cut our own -- it is the first thing we did in congress this year, to cut our own budget by 5%. you heard me give the analogy of a family trying to save $32,000, making $46,000, spending $70,000. the amount that we saved is less than $1 in that world. we can do it, but that will not solve the problem. the piece of legislation that we sent to the senate two weeks ago did exactly what you described. if we have to shut down the government, we will not get paid. the senate has not acted on not. i hear what you are saying. there are more people here who

agree with you then you realize. -- than you realize. it takes both bodies to get this done and, right now, the senate is not even willing to take up the debate. host: dennis in sacramento. atler: you're going to look a recall for 95% of all republicans. furthermore, the gap in the -- the iraq and afghanistan wars. $13 trillion has been spent on them. there is one more point. all of the people in the tea party, all of the baggers, they are coca cola, walmart, everybody else. host: i will ask the congress

meant to respond -- congressman to respond. how concerned are you about the 2012 election? guest: this is what i said i would do. the communities that we live in do not represent the entire nation. where i live, i told people, please send me to washington so i can cut spending. if i do not do that, i should be sent home. i told them i would come up here to work on balancing the budget and cutting spending. i spent some time in massachusetts. it is not like south carolina. the key is to find places where we can agree. i have enough trouble delivering a message when the numbers are right. for folks on the other side of the aisle to say that a single war is causing -- costing $13 trillion -- it simply is not true.

we need to agree on some rational numbers and have a recent debate -- reasoned debate on the issue. otherwise, we will never solve this problem. host: here is another view or arguing for revenue -- viewer arguing for revenue. guest: that actually is not true. there have been about eight or 10 successful turnaround by developed countries. i have done a good bit of research on this. some have managed to do it by cutting taxes and cutting spending. not a single one has successfully turned itself around when it relied on more than 15% or 20% of its gap to be raised by taxes. you might be able to do it with $15 or $20 out of $100, but the

rest of it has to come from cutting spending. historically, that is what other countries have shown us. if the democrats want to bring forward a comprehensive, balanced tax plan, let's see it. we have lead on social security, medicare, and medicaid. is that not enough on our side? if the democrats want to bring a balance plan, let's see it. last night, that is not what we saw. it was not a comprehensive tax plan that was designed to solve the problems. it was a plan designed to gain political favor and to make headlines and win a couple more house seats next year. i am happy to sit down with folks who want to talk. i spent a good amount of time talking with mr. erskine and mr. bowles. host: what is your day look like

today with the clock ticking toward the deadline? guest: will be discussing it in committee -- we will be discussing it in committee and building on what it takes to balance the budget. i think we are voting on the continuing resolution late this afternoon. i do not have much idea of what i am doing past about 15 minutes from now. host: we're glad you are spending some of that time with us. sharon on the republican line. go ahead, please. caller: it has probably been three years since i called in. i have called in before about social security. i do not remember who i talked to, but he never answered the question. can you please specifically answer my question? you seem to be doing a good job. social security, i think it is

very easy to fix. i think it is awful to try to increase the retirement age. my family all die in their 60s's 70's it is- 60's and . it is kind of a not fair thing. you need to tax the full amount of income. someone who makes $5 million a year -- their tax is 7%. it is a tax. part of my social security that i pay in is for someone else who does not pay in enough. we tax like $98,000. anybody who makes over that isn't taxed on it. guest: we are willing to

consider anything. we're willing to consider whatever we possibly can to fix the system. if we do nothing with social security, absolutely nothing, the current law states that as soon as the receipts do not meet the expenditures, the checks are cut automatically. that will happen in about 20 years. the checks will automatically be cut by 20% from 25%. we have to do something. you dismissed the retirement age. when social security was created, the retirement age set at 65, life expectancy was actually lower than that. this was designed not to pay anybody on a statistical basis. our life expectancy has grown dramatically. that fact does introduce the concept of raising the retirement age.

we propose to raise the retirement age by two months, a small tax. i can look somebody in the eye and ask somebody who is 59 to work to them -- work two additional months to help solve this problem. i think the answer might be yes. host: i think this will be our last question for you. a democrat from illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call, first. why do they always attack social security and medicare? the government borrowed money out of it. as far as taxing the rich -- i mean, we put the people in the white house and most of them make over $100,000 a. .

-- $100,000. they keep talking about the baby boomers. guest: i get that question a lot. why do we focus on social security, medicare, and medicaid? we simply cannot balance the budget without focusing on those problems. that is how large a portion of what we spend, about 60%, mandatory, entitlement spending. the military is the next biggest chunk at about 20% of what we spend. we did pass, on a bipartisan basis last night -- on a bipartisan basis, last night something that said that military spending has to be on the table. we're serious about this. we will cut things that, traditionally, republicans have never considered cutting. the reason we are talking about social security, medicare, and medicaid so frequently is

because that is where the money is. that is the only way to balance the budget. if you want us to balance the budget, we must reform social security, medicare, and medicaid. if you do not want to balance the budget, you have the wrong folks in congress, at least the folks i hang out with. host: mick mulvaney, i hope you'll come and talk with us again. guest: thank you very much. host: we continue with david cicilline, a democrat from rhode island, the first district, a former mayor of providence, a member of the mighty nine, the democrats who managed to win seats last year. thank you for being with us. what are your priorities over the next couple of days as we get closer to the deadline? are you holding fast to principle? are you worried about the

government shutting down? guest: i am very concerned about the government shutting down. we have to recognize the implications it has for regular folks, the impact it will have on people who are relying on government checks or people who work for the government, people who try to process applications at the va or social security, or visit one of our national parks. it has real implications for families in this really difficult economy. we have to be doing everything we can, democrats and republicans, to resolve this impasse as the american people expect. we ought to be able to resolve it. the idea of a government shutdown in this economy where people are already hurting and people have already lost confidence that government can get anything right, i think it is critical that we avoid a shutdown. our leaders have been working on this, the president, the senate majority leader. they met last night and they

reported some progress. the press has been hijacked by an extreme part of the republican caucus. i do not think there is consensus within the republican caucus. i think that is the challenge. there are people on the far right who are making this resolution more difficult for the speaker. there are divisions within his own caucus. we all need to be pushing in this direction. i think the american people need and deserve it. host: are you flexible on the target numbers? guest: i think everyone recognizes that we have to cut spending and we have to be serious about it, but there are principles like protecting medicare. the ryan budget would end medicare as we know it as a guarantee for senior. that is something i will never support. we have to continue to invest in education. we have to be willing to make cuts. $50ve voted ifor more than

billion in cuts and i have only been here for a number of weeks. this budget yesterday -- that was released yesterday pretext tax breaks for the richest americans and -- protects tax breaks for the richest americans. the cbo said the budget cut released by the republicans, in the first 10 years the not cut the deficit because tax cuts for the richest americans outpace the reduction in spending. the notion that this will cut the deficit is not true. it also sets the wrong priorities. it gives away billions to buy oil and gas subsidies, it ends medicare. it ships jobs overseas. it slashes support for nursing homes, for seniors.

it makes permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. those are not priorities. host: let me dig a little bit more around the ryan budget proposal, not on the medicare, but medicaid part. the proposal would switch it over to more of a block grant program. governors have been petitioning washington with more -- for more flexibility because medicaid eat up some much of their budget. you saw what medicaid did in your own communities. what are your concerns about a block grant system? guest: in the context of health care, it will not work. there are reductions in medicaid amount in this block grant system, and as health care costs rise, there is no guarantee that those will not increase. so more of those services will be shifted over to veterans, people with disabilities, poor

people. they would experience greater cost for less services over time, the cbo confirmed that as well. host: you were a small business owner before coming to congress. guest: i was a lawyer. host: did you have your own law firm? guest: yes, for about 20 years, then i served in the legislature before coming here. host: one of the professions affected by the recession, lawyers are not doing so well. what does it take to rebuild small business in this country? guest: there is no question small businesses need access to capital. we are hearing that all the time. second, they need help in cutting the red tape of dealing with the bureaucracy of government. in the predictability in tax

policy and other vermin policies, so they can make plans -- government policies, so they can make plans for their work force. host: give us a snapshot of providence right now. what is on the planet like? guest: ryland has the fifth highest unemployment in the country -- rhode island has the fifth highest unemployment in the country. it is incredibly difficult right now. host: what will turn that around? guest: investments that the president is talking about, infrastructure investment, job training. i am proposing a make it in america block grant that would invest in manufacturing in america. we need to start to make things around the world. we also have a big knowledge economy growing in rhode island,

coming out of our universities and hospitals. stabilizing the housing market. there is a lot of work to be done. cuts in spending, balancing the budget, managing the deficit, but at the same time, making those investments to the country that are critical to the economy. infrastructure, education, things that will spark the job growth. host: last night, you were part of a press release that came out from the media center, democrats for senior advocates. here is the quote he contributed. "the american people have seen over the past 15 years, the

republican party is are not of our own." this is sherry in indiana. an independent. caller: good morning. i guess i want to talk about social security. everybody wants to balance the budget on the back of us baby boomers. this is all we have had for a lot of us. you have to remember, if we paid 15% in federal income tax, we had another 15% side -- that is 30% of our salaries because the employer put in the other 7.6%. i do not understand why we have to balance the budget on that. social security has only been set up for 70 years. they said the life expectancy was set up for when they thought people would live younger.

well, before world war ii, that is all we had, social security. guest: we have had this conversation before with republicans where they talk about privatizing social security, but you are right, it has collected $14.6 trillion since its inception. it is a program that has existed for 75 years, a system that works well. we should strengthen and protect it. the notion that we should use this budget gap as a reason to privatize social security is absolutely wrong. you are right. it is a system that needs strengthening, but it is not contributing to the deficit. host: what has changed is the number of early workers paying into those collecting. we are about to undergo a demographic shift do you propose

any changes to this structure? host: we have guest: -- we have to -- guest: we have to be looking at those issues and ensure social security remains solvent and strong for all generations. host: century, florida. please turn down the volume on your tv. we are getting some feedback. caller: i watched c-span the other day. for about half the day, this one woman all she could talk about was abortion. what does this have to do with the government closing? guest: it is a great question. republican leadership in the house can admits the worst

economy since the great depression were almost the singular focus should be on the economy and jobs, raised plans to defund planned parenthood, a health care plan that provides cervical exams, provides health care to women who would not otherwise be able to afford health care. they wanted to the fund that. they did it as a way to speak to the extreme ideologues in their party. it was not an issue we should taken up. we should be working on jobs and getting the american people back to work and the economy back on track, but they are speaking to some extreme portions of their caucus to try to please them rather than focusing on the american people. host: next phone call. this is ted, a democrat. caller: congratulations on winning your election, one of

the mighty 9. you have been a lawyer, you would understand this. it seems for the past four, five years, as i am watching the news, we are going to get one of these tax lawyers for the people who did not pay the tax bill. do you think that is fair? senator john kyl, from arizona, who collects over $125,000 a year, has decided that he is not going to run again in 2012 and retired. do you think $139,000 is a bit access for a pension? -- excess for a pension? and when you go to the hill

today, challenge some of your republican colleagues to give up their government health care and buy it off of the private market, like i have to, as a plumber. congratulations. have a great day. guest: thank you for the call. we have to look at the cost of the pension system. i know that is an issue in cities and towns across the country. i think the question about health care and payment for congress, those are issues that we raised in the democratic caucus. this past week, we put forth a proposal that said if there was a government shutdown, members of congress and the president should not be paid during the shutdown. that was defeated by republicans in the house. many of the republicans campaigned on repealing the affordable health care act, yet

resisted efforts to have their own health care taken away. the health care reform bill provides the same health care that members of congress receive, and we should not have a better health care system than the american people. host: what is your position on corporate taxation? guest: there was a disturbing article the other day of the general the electric. 0 income tax and they receive back in excess of $3 billion. it is clear american corporations, other corporations are not paying their fair share and the greater burden is being shifted to the middle-class. one of the reasons i oppose tax cuts for the richest 2% of americans is there is an incredible divide of who is carrying the burden. it is time for the wealthiest americans and a corporation to pay their share. host: when you hear the argument

that corporations do not pay taxes, that they pass them on to customers, what is your response? guest: if you look at the tax code, it is filled with tax expenditures, which are written on behalf of big corporations by a parade of lobbyists that taylor those provisions to their shareholders. we need to simplify the tax code and make it fairer. we need to make sure the biggest corporations and wealthy americans are paying their fair share. host: are you comfortable with jeffrey m.l. as a key adviser to the economy? -- immelt as a key adviser to the economy? guest: i respect the president's decision, of course. host: next phone call from new mexico. don. caller: the richest 400 families

in the country make on average $435 million each. what is their effective tax rate? guest: i think it is 38%. if your point is -- caller: their effective tax rate is 16.4%. the richest to not pay income tax. they pay capital gains and dividends. guest: assuming that they make it in the way that you're describing. go on to theet's next. john paulson, who has a hedge fund. he has a hedge fund called paulson & paulson. last year, he made $5 billion.

because his hedge fund pays on carried interest, his effective tax rate is 15%. so my question to you is, the previous legislator who was on said we cannot tax our way out of this situation, yet, what we see is the richest americans in this country pay on capital gains and dividends but do not pay on earned income. what would be the effect -- and i am just asking about the effect of these rich americans paying capital gains and dividends as real income. that would mean another 20%. and we are talking about a 1% of americans who hold 24% of the wealth in the country. the problem with wealth is it is distributed from the top, and those people pay an effective

tax rate that is less than the effective tax rate of most americans. guest: you are right. the disparity of treatment is very different. you are absolutely right. the idea that the income is treated as an investment income and is taxed at a lower rate results and some of the wealthiest people in the country not paying their fair share. it gets to a larger issue. there is an incredible divide between haves and have-nots that has grown to the worst it has been since almost in 1930's. part of the reason for that is tax law. one of the reason that i strongly opposed before i got here was tax breaks for the richest 2% of americans at the cost of $800 billion. these are the same people clamoring about the deficit, but they are just adding to it by providing these tax cuts.

both republican and democratic economists said that we need to cut spending and raise revenue. what the republicans have proposed are cuts in spending and cuts and revenue by making permit tax breaks for the richest americans, tax breaks that are shipping jobs overseas, oil and gas subsidies. that is the wrong thing to do. host: is the debt ceiling above an easy one for you? guest: yes, it is about keeping our obligation to pay our bills. we want to be sure we are dealing with the deficit in a serious way, making responsible dishes and with the budget, but we should always pay our bill. host: scott from westminster, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. about social security -- named me the most profitable traded company in rhode island, and i will behalf of my money into it

and i will get a better return than government bonds. secondly, i do not care -- named three places that you could eliminate funding from the government. first is planned parenthood. second is national endowment for the arts. third is npr and pbs. that is where we can cut the budget and it will not harm anyone. guest: i told you what i thought about the importance of planned parenthood. in national endowments for the arts, the arts is extremely important for a lot of people across the country. it represents jobs, tourism, it helps define our spirit as a country. in this time of great division, it is time we understand the great value of the arts to heal our country and unite us. as you suggest, it results in

infinitesimal small amounts of our budget, but the nation needs to continue to invest in the arts, corporation for public broadcasting provides incredibly important services. those are investments we need to protect. what we need to focus on is the big budget items, like military expenses, discretionary spending, and some other reforms we are talking about on other expenditures. the thing that you described are the things that have driven the debate and have really hijacked the budget process because of claims about parent -- planned parenthood, npr. these are not the thing that the american people are focused on. host: we have a short visit with you this morning. please come back and spend some more time with us in the future. we continue our discussion with members of the house of

representatives, as the dead time gets closer to the expiration of a continuing resolution. the next congressman joining us from capitol hill is dennis ross, a republican of florida, representing the 12th district. he is in the education, work force, government oversight reform committees. i want to pick up on a twe et that you put out recently. will you comment more on that? others have suggested that across-the-board spending cuts is a lack of leadership. guest: it is more symbolic. first of all, as you well know, we inherited a budget year were no budget was passed in the previous congress. as a result, we have been distracted with having to deal with a continuing resolution

instead of focusing on the major issues, which is what we now have in the 2012 budget. we are going to have to cut significantly. the reason for the tweet is to symbolically say that we need to get on with the real business. this country is broke. we do not have the money to fund the projects that we have been funding for years and years. we have got to get back to an austerity program. we have to get back to fiscal prudence. what i am saying is, let's take a 5% cut and move on. we have a bigger battle ahead of us. we have the 2012 budget and the debt ceiling. these are significant issues that dwarf what we're doing today, but unfortunately, where we are today is crucial. we are this close to shutting down government. host: so what are you willing to vote for in the next 24 hours? guest: we have to fund the

department of defense. it would be irresponsible and unconscionable to walk out of here with a government shutdown and not find those who are in harm's way. that is our first priority. if we are doing is working towards negotiations, resolving the rest of this year's budget, then let's make sure we are doing that prudently, but let's take the first priority that we are funding those in the department of defense. when i spoke with the general a couple of months ago, he said the short-term cr's are killing us because we cannot plan, we do not know what our budget is. host: are you willing to compromise on any of the policyriders that seem to be the sticking point between democrats and republicans? guest: when you try to take them out of the budget, they are policy riders, but when they are

in, they're considered appropriations. it depends on how you describe it. we need to get to 2012, but we cannot get there until we fund the 2011. we made significant cuts today. more so than any other congress. we need to push for more cuts, but let's not do so at the expense of shutting down government and not taking a back -- care of those in harm's way. host: could you talk about your concerns of a government shutdown, how bad would it be for callerif that happened? guest: in the name of fiscal prudence, we have to understand any shutdown would be more expensive than keeping it open. there would be retroactive pay for government employees, start up costs. this will have been an expensive undertaking. it will have cost more to shut down than to continue. i think a government shutdown can be and should be avoided,

however, to that end, the congressional staff, federal agencies, everyone is making contingency plans in the event of a shutdown. host: to your point, "the new york times" had a look at past shutdowns. the two combined shutdowns in 1995, 1996, which are so often compared with a time we are in now, $1.4 billion total in back pay costs and other expenses. before we get to calls, tell us about the economic situation in the 12th district. guest: i was born and raised in the district and this is the highest unemployment we have seen. we are probably rule, blue-

collar, a conservative community. we have lost some of our agriculture community, service industry. we need to have a revitalization, but the only way we have that is through economic development. my district is not looking for a government program to employ people. they want the government to provide an environment so that investments can be made. businesses that are having record profits and holding onto the dollars, they have a reason to invest and hire people. district 12 is beautiful, one of the few land locked districts in florida, old florida. people need to see their part of the state flourished. host: columbia, south carolina. diana, you are on the air. caller: i have a question about various tax plans that have been proposed over the years. one is a national sales tax. we have a large, undocumented

work force in the country. we also have an underground where people are dealing drugs and money. if you reduce the income tax and go to a national sales tax, that is one option that could bring more money into the government. the other is a proposed flat tax that would tax everyone at the same rate. what is your opinion either of those? guest: what we refer to as the sales tax, i referred to as the fair tax. if we could eliminate the income tax and have nothing but a fair tax, national sales tax, you would see the price of products reduced. there will no longer be the price that businesses have to pay and pass on to the consumers. you will see the true consumption tax. the people that want the item will know that they are paying a tax on it. more importantly, people will be able to keep their money and decide what they want to spend it on. moving into a fair tax, along

with the elimination of the internal income revenue tax is a good idea. host: it is unusual for a freshman to have a chairman position, but he chairs the subcommittee on the postal service and federal labor policy. i am reading about what may close and what may not. will the mail continue if there is a federal shot down? guest: yes, and that is because they are an agency that operates within their own budget. the money they received comes from the postage and services they provide, so they will continue to provide mail as they have. another issue down the road is whether they can sustain themselves based on their current business model, but that is a separate issue. host: next telephone call, in east st. louis, illinois.

caroline. caller: good morning. i am a primary care giver. i took care of my father. he has alzheimer's. we are living off of his income. i always have to be with him. i do not understand why the republicans would want to mess with the elderly. a lot of them have paid into these taxes, but now they want to cut from them. host: i am going to pick up on her comment. many of the headlines that have come out of the 2012 budget proposal from mr. ryan suggests it unfairly hits the poor and elderly in society. could you offer your view of

that? guest: i take the opposite view of that. first of all, anyone 54 and under, it will not affect. also understand, i have a father who is a veteran of the vietnam war, he needs 24 hour care. he has parkinson's. we need to make sure that we take care of the people who cannot take care of themselves. the ryan budget allows more options for the families. it allows for greater subsidies for those who have a financial need, to make sure they have that. more importantly, it gives us families the option of what type of plan they want to use for their type of care. one thing that is important is one side does not fit all when the government is performing the service. giving consumers options is one of the best things we can do. not only does it provide choice, but it provides competition to those offering it. that will be more advantageous

for those in need and the elderly. host: uniondale, pennsylvania. nathan is a republican. do you have a question? caller: yes, i do. you speak about tax provisions and what have you. our country was founded on excising tariffs. we got away from that. we need to get back to that. we have an interest rate of 1/10 of 1% for the first 120 years of our country. we need to get back to that. all the tax programs, all of the

expenditures, -- this and that -- everything you are talking about, you have just thrown it out the window. get back to standard money programs that were set up when the country was put together. guest: you could not be any more on a point when it comes to the regards of our current tax policy. when ge does not pay income taxes because they have loopholes, we have a problem. it would be nice if we could have a conversation about how we're going to take care of so and so because we have this surplus over here that we have amassed because we are not paying $480 billion a year in interest. because of our spending and tax structure, we have gotten our country in such significant debt, that the only thing we can do is cut spending. look at how we are going to

incentivize greater revenues, not through burdensome higher taxes, but broader tax base is by more economic development. if we could go more toward simplifying our tax system, the way this country was founded, the way this country became prosperous, then we will be on the right track. host: this is a tweet -- guest: i would be willing to cut anything unnecessary. a colleague of mine from florida recently passed a bill in congress that reduced a significant amount of duplication of forms and other documents in the department of defense. we need to make sure that when we do that, we prioritize our spending so that we make sure that we are giving our men and women overseas the best equipment possible and that we do not reduce that. we need to make sure that we take care of everything that is

necessary to the mission. we need to look and our presence globally to see what is necessary, but there will have to be cuts in the department of defense. host: our guest has authored an op ed piece calling for a 0- based budget. it is widely available online. if you are willing to hear his argument case for that, recently, -- i would encourage you to find his reasoning on his web site on line for this budget concept. for lauderdale, florida. independent. kevin. caller: it is amazing. he is of here with the standard republican talking points. you guys are a well oiled machine. all of you guys are bought and paid for. it is amazing that you can sit

up there and say what you say. the reason why we are broke is because you said -- you mentioned it. ge and big corporations have bought and paid for you guys and you do what they tell you to do. i do not have tax loopholes so that i do not have to pay taxes. you are not try to address that issue. you are just going to let them run the country into the ground , and the standard line you give us is, the tax rate is the highest in the world, but are you going to have people work for a dollar a day, like in china? guest: first of all, i take offense to what he said. personally, i did not have much to grow on. i put myself through school,

paid back student loans, board money from a friend the as the bank would not load it to me. i am the picture of my own success, not because of some big corporation. i am here on my principles. number two, we keep sending businesses and manufacturing overseas because of our regulatory environment. i submit to you the best thing we can do for our american people is to allow them the opportunity to be self-fulfilled in their beliefs and entrepreneurialship. if we want to see jobs develop, we need to create an environment where we have jobs. this is not a republican mantra. this is what has made this country great. this is not something i just believe in, it is something i advocate. host: next phone call. burnie, a democrat. caller: good morning.

this is beatrice burnie. i have a problem with people comparing medicare and medicaid. medicare is paid for by the individual. medicaid is being misused in many cases. there are so many people collecting this for children they do not have custody of, food stamps for family members they do not have, custody of their children. i know that you have some computers that can check on these things. people are deliberately having children just to get a tax break. this is happening all over the country. if we had more inspections on the expenditures, we would have less expense for the government's. host: really getting to the

heart of waste, fraud. guest: you remember when they were advocating obamacare, they said a significant portion of that would be funded through waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare. that is something that we have to focus on with harsh penalties so that we have a harsh penalty -- focus on those who are doing this and give them a harsh penalty. we will continue to work with leadership and to reach across the aisle to compromise which will allow government to keep on functioning well, keep on making cuts that would keep the government on track toward solvency. the next 24 hours will be intense. host: thank you for being here. we hope to have you back in the future. we are going to take a couple of telephone calls and switched

guests there at our temporary studio. our final guest today, john yarmuth. if you watched any of the budget debate yesterday, he was an active purchaser and in that as a member of the committee. he is in his third term of the house, representing the third district of kentucky. let's listen to marietta, georgia. tom, we do not have a guest right now, but what would you like to say about the budget debate? guest: we need a national -- caller: we need a national lottery for taxes and then we need to look and social security. it needs to be done and spending should be stopped. not stopped, but at least cut. host: wesley is an independent in florida. your comment? caller: i am a few

representatives behind, but one of them was talking about a 5% pay cut in the house. if it equaled $1 in his analogy, why even do it? i would propose members of the house and congress make 15% more than the members of the district. you do not go into the military to make money, so why would you go into public service to make money? and if the government does shut down, i do not believe we owe them any back pay, if they were not doing their job in the first place. host: our guests, congressman john yarmuth, is with us now. thank you for being here. i have a headline that says us rep. yarmuth will be making deep

cuts. talk about that. guest: they had to make cuts because they anticipated budget cuts would reduce the work. this is going on all of the country. government spending accounts for about 40% -- at all levels -- 45% of total spending in the economy. the federal budget is 25% of gross domestic product. you cannot cut government spending without having an impact on jobs. as in the case of the company in my district, that is just a private contractor working on a defense project cutting jobs. you cannot cut government spending without losing jobs. it does not work that way. host: how do you see the next 24 hours playing out, mr. yarmuth? guest: it is interesting, but we saw over the last days, when we marked up in the budget

committee, a lot of the new republican members particularly are very ideologically rigid. when you say it will have this impact on the economy, they say this is ok, it is not the role for the government. so it is not necessarily you are saying, armonk to spend this much, i want to spend this much, let's split the difference. we do not care what the number is. we are not going to spend it. that makes it difficult to negotiate. it looks to me that speaker john boehner has a real problem on his hands because he has 87 or so new member that really do not care whether you belong to government. that is what they are here to do. host: we have heard republicans say that we are in this situation because the last congress did not pass a budget. what is your explanation for why they did not pass a budget? guest: first of all, the actual

inside baseball was there was not enough votes to pass a budget. we reported a budget to the full house and speaker, and our leadership determined they did not have the votes to pass, but we did pass last december a budget enforcement agreement that set the same kind of caps on various categories of spending that a budget would have done that is not the reason we have this problem. the reason we are in this situation is, in the past decade, we have lost an awful lot of jobs. the jobs that have remained are at lower wages. tax revenues are at the lowest rate as a percentage of the economy in 60 years. when somebody is paying taxes and all the sudden they are unemployed, it is a double with me because you lose tax revenue and then you have to increase government services to support that person. we are in a difficult economic situation. it is not because of some budget

document that was not passed last year. host: let me move on to the 2012 budget produced by mr. ryan, marked up in the budget committee. you were an active participant in the session. what was your take away? guest: i think the republicans on the committee -- and they are reflective of this new breed of republicans. half of them on the committee are new members. they are committed to minimizing the role of the federal government. it is an ideologically driven position. i am not criticizing it, i do not happen to agree with it, but on every issue, we heard time and again, we understand it is a valuable program, we understand it is important to support firemen and police, but that is not the role of government. we are seeing a slash and burn approach to governing. what is frustrating -- time and again, we do not have a renewed

problem, we have a spending problem. it is as if they do not have any idea of a second half of the ledger. basically, they say the tax side is off the table and we are going to concentrate and balance by slashing anspending. i had a proposal to return us back to the clinton tax rates for people whose adjusted gross income was over $1 million. that would have saved $350 billion over 10 years, not one republican vote for it. they have this almost religious fervor that you cannot touch taxes, even though we have, as a percentage of the economy, the lowest taxes in 60 years. host: we are looking at some scenes from that marked up yesterday. time to go to the phone calls. cold water, michigan. richard is a republican.

guest: -caller: good morning. my question for the congressman is this. i worked for a company, the largest tv producer in the world and they had closed and laid off 500 people and move to china. their stated reason was that the taxes in china were nearly zero and they could function more profitably by moving out of the country is this not happening with -- out of the country. is this stuff happening with hundreds of companies a month? guest: i am not against looking at our corporate tax situation and seeing if it makes sense to change it. in china, for instance, may have a managed economy. when foreign companies go to

deduct we allow them to th the taxes from china. they are taxed, they get to deduct it, and then they basically get their facilities for free and we subsidize that. there are things we can look at that can change that picture. i have a general electric production facility in my district. they are bringing back almost 2000 jobs from china because what they figured out is, when you reduce the supply chain from 10,000 miles to zero and you make some other changes, there is not much economic benefit to make something in china, if you are going to sell it in the u.s. i do not have any problem with looking at corporate tax rates to see it if we can do it more effectively, to keep american

jobs here. host: we learn from our first guest that the republican study committee is proposing an alternate budget today. i use that as a lead in to this tweet. guest: it is, and we will have a house democratic budget proposal in the next couple of days. what you have to remember, there is a democratic but not on the table, and that is the president's budget. it is not as if the democratic party has been a sleep at the wheel. there is a budget that the president submitted. democrats in the house will submit one as well. host: we have a lot of article this morning that looks at his leadership style, the risks and rewards. what is your own view of how to

appropriately active the president has been in the budget debate process? guest: well, he was pretty active yesterday. i get frustrated, have been frustrated, since the president has been in office since early 2009, about the way he has approached some of these things, but almost every time at the end, his strategy and progress is successful, so i hate to be too critical of him. ultimately, he has been effective. i would have liked to see him weigh in much more heavily, as long as he weighs in on the side of a balanced approach to balancing the budget. we do not have that. we have seen, in the continuing resolutions, in these negotiations, but all republicans want to do is balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in the country and not look at millionaires and billionaires, agro business, major oil

companies. i wish he would weigh in and make the case for a more balanced approach. host: next call from pensacola, florida. i apologize if you are having some problems with your ear piece. rick is an independent from pensacola. caller: i was an independent after 2006, but the way -- i was a republican after 2006, but the way they manage the country, i became an independent. i will stand for some of democratic ideas. we have to raise the cap on social security taxes. i do not know the exact number, i think -6000. he probably knows the cap. i think they should raise it to $200,000. the point i would like to make, the only thing that i believe will save this country is if we

have a constitutional amendment that limits terms. congressman should be limited to 12 years, six, two-year terms, two, six-year terms for senators. anybody who has ever studied politics knows that the incumbent has an incredible advantage. term limits is what we need because we need to get fresh blood, people who have built businesses, engineers, doctors. we do not need as many lawyers as we have because all they do is transfer wealth. guest: i am not a lawyer fortunately. i actually agree with you. i have come 180 degrees on this. i used to think that if a congressional district of the representative was someone they wanted to keep, they should be able to for as long as they wanted to. but because of the huge influx of money into the system, the

way that we have reconstructed the country, particularly in the house, i would be interested in going to federal campaigns, a different way to redistrict. i would do that first, but if we are not going to do that, i would be in favor of term limits. host: how is the job situation in a little today? guest: we are about 10%. we have been suffering the way that most communities have, but we are holding our own. there are some bright things on the horizon. i am optimistic we are coming out of the problem, but we are probably just a little bit behind the rest of the country in the employment. host: what would make a difference in bringing more jobs to the republic? guest: i was in a meeting yesterday that was conducted by the chamber of congress. the commerce, all business

leaders. they were asking what they could do to stimulate the economy. it sounded like a progressive caucus. increase the amount of financial aid for community colleges. we need more research and development in our economy to create new categories of jobs and new industries. we need support for things like child care and other things that will allow people to be productive. the one thing that i keep harping on, republicans love to talk about lowering taxes. in the republican 2012 budget, the proposed cutting the maximum rate from a 35% to 25%. my brother is in the barbecue restaurant business and has always done well. he had worried about the tax rate. he said to me, i figured out if nobody can afford bar-b-que, it does not matter what my tax rate is. over the last couple of decades, the percentage of the national

income that has gone to the top 1% has gone from 9% to 34%. it is the greatest concentration of wealth in this country. we need to make sure that these 90% of the people feel the business in the country and can make a living that enables them to aspire to a great lifestyle, to a better life. we need to focus on supporting and developing our human capital, and that will be by the kinds of investments that, i think, the president is proposing, and we are committed to infrastructure, research and development. host: last couple of minutes with john yarmuth. jamie in kentucky. caller: i wanted to comment on something you said earlier. i remember the house to be more

directly tied to the people, in terms of their votes, their decisions. you are on a pretty short leash with your constituency. you talked about the new republicans voted into office, not representing the views of the people. i kind of took issue. could you elaborate why you believe these people have been voted in do not represent the people? guest: i think most of the polls show that they do not represent the view of the majority of people, but what i am saying is they are driven by philosophy and ideology more than just a problem-solving approach. when you are driven by the notion that the federal government has no role in education -- which is what rand paul believes. that does not allow a compromise in the house. believe me, i do not question

there is sincerity, but again, they did not represent the majority views of americans. you can say we to cut spending, we need to cut spending. virtually everyone will agree with that. and then you poll virtually any district, do you want to cut medicare, medicaid, social security, road funds? virtually everything we spend money on people say no. the only thing they want to cut is foreign aid, and that is only a small part of the budget. so there is a bit of a disconnect between the reality and some of these political philosophies. that is where we are having a problem in making progress on the budget. host: travis city, michigan. you are the last phone call for the congressman. caller: good morning. i was wondering why all the democrats are up in arms about the $6 trillion budget that ryan

has offered. how many years to the democrats expect to pay off this debt? that would be 25 years by that time. the second note is, why don't we have the states that are funded by the government take the middleman out? half of the money that is sent out is sent back. guest: let me answer the question about the budget. the second one is a logger, a philosophical question. here is why the ryan budget is what i call the harry potter budget. it does not meet the stiff test of reality. it says tax revenues will increase, almost double, over the next 10 years. this is the only source they can provide for that, the heritage foundation study. it predicted there would be huge surpluses and great job growth after the bush tax cuts. what has happened, in fact, 10

years ago total revenues were about $1.90 trillion. today they are $2.20 trillion. even after cutting tax rates, federal revenues in 10 years are going to be $4.30 trillion, almost double what they are now. that is almost impossible, and on the planet will be almost 2% -- on employment will be almost 2%, which had never happened -- unemployment will always be 2%, which has never happened in this country. the other thing you have to realize his after the next 10 years, if the ryan budget were passed, the national debt would still increase by $8 trillion. $15 trillion to $23 trillion. so he does not cut the deficit, bring the budget into balance until after 2040.

and those are with the assumption that have no basis in making. i think that is most of the democrats' problem budget -- with the budget. it is like he waved a magic wand and the numbers appeared. host: john yarmuth, a third term in the congress and a couple of busy hours ahead. thank you for being with us today. we are going to be here for another hour. more of your phone calls with your message to congress about the budget at this critical point in negotiations. our final test will be ed o'keefe, who writes about federal bureaucracy. >> let's meet another winner of our studentcam competition. we asked students to develop a video on a specific issue or event that help them better understand the role of our government. today we go to new jersey, where

we are meeting madeleine of clear view regional middle school. hello. congratulations on your win. >> thank you. >> what is your video about? >> my video is about math education reform. i chose this topic because, first of all, i felt education reform was a big topic that affected my life, and i have always enjoyed math. when i was looking at the 2009 results, i noticed that math was a subject where we had the biggest gap between the u.s. and china. i thought it was interesting. i thought it was because of learning and memorization. when i looked into it, i found out, that learning and memorization is that what they

are doing at all. they are focusing on prom-based learning and moving away from standardized testing. then i remember that my school, clear view regional middle school, had recently made algebra one available to seventh graders. i wondered if it was part of the push to improve america's math education. you used the phrase "sputnik moment" in your documentary. do you think we need another one of those kinds of moments? >> i do not know if it really applies here. the russians took us by surprise. we have known about china's educational success for a while. the u.s. is really dragging its feet. i think a moment of good competitiveness would really help the u.s.

>> what are other countries during for adjudication? >> china is moving away from standardized testing. in finland, their education system is among the best, but it is cheaper than our own. also in china and finland, the in educator is highly respected, while in the u.s., being a teacher is among the most desirable profession. >> in your opinion, what could the u.s. do to improve the education system over here? >> first, i think that teachers should be evaluated, more than once a year. i think, once every other week. also, teaching kids to their full potential and settled just to standardized testing. also, i think that children

should be tracked to their level of understanding early on instead of just by the middle school and high school. and i think that kids should be made to understand and make meaning of things that they are taught, especially in math, which is very abstract. >> thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. >> let's watch a portion of madeleine's winning video. >> the chinese are trying to move away from standardized testing with ransom of, much like our no child left behind grant. there's also something to be said about our cultural differences. sevine internet is a source of national pride in education is much more valuable than it is in the u.s. china does not require education after ninth grade. in no child left behind, some

states are made to be more accountable for the education going on at the end of january, president obama is going to address education in his state of the union speech. >> you can see this and all the winning video said studentcam and continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues. >> and they could -- and a good thursday moninder gah -- host: and a good thursday morning to you. it was an overnight of closed- door sessions with members and negotiators in the house and senate meeting behind closed doors. we do not know where things

stand this morning, but lots more budget negotiations ahead. our phone lines are open. what is your message to the congress at this point? we will take your calls and e- mails during this next half- hour. then we will be joined by of byeefe, who buys a story -- ed o'keefe, who has a story, in the "washington post" this morning. we will learn more from him in about half an hour. let's get to phone calls and your message to congress about the budget. oxnard, calif., will.

caller: i think the democrats and the senate should stand up to the republican party. until these truths -- tell the truth and cannot continue to tell these lies about the budget. cleese people make so much money and have no taxes -- these people make so much money and have no taxes. host: alan conway tweets -- up is detroit and ryan, independent. what is your comment about the budget? caller: this will shutdown -- hold shutdown is smoke and mirrors. it is the proving ground for the republican party. in the past, we had a republican

controlled senate and we have a shutdown several times because the republicans, what they would do through these budget cuts, they wanted to attack education. we thought it was stupid and there was no way it could go through. nothing ever got done. host: scott kelley tweaks -- next is louisville, a comment from do, a democrat there. caller: i was trying to get in when congressman yarmouth was there. he is my congressman. i would say he is -- he would be too modest to mention it, but since he has been in congress he has donated his entire congressional salary to local charities.

he talks the talk and walks the walk. he is the average man. although, he does pretty well financially, but the man makes sense. it is all smoke and mirrors on this budget plan. it would be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of this country. they will not even balance the budget for 30 years. i cannot believe people would fall for this. host: and another tweet -- tennessee is next and this is a phone call from ben, independent. caller: i think they all should take a big tax cut, just a big cut in pay and live life like the poor people do, like we have to. they get up there and get all our money.

g e end of them donated a lot of money to them and i think that the poor people should get a raise. host: maria, republican in san diego. if your message to congress? caller: our education system -- social security has taken the biggest chunk out of the federal government. i think the federal government needs to take responsibility for their actions. and i know that the gao is also a part of that. there is no reason in the world by the congress should not be at our level of the last 15 to 20 years. our education system has changed to assist people who do

not speak english or do not know our budget -- basic education out here. my child was left behind because of that. i believe we need to get back to our states and educating the american people. host: speaking of states, let's take a quick look at how the budget debates are playing out in the states. from wisconsin, the judicial election heads to recount. the wisconsin supreme court, which could affect the outcome of the republican governors and recounted yesterday

next call is from st. louis. mrs. sterling, a democrat. good morning. caller: have a question for the republican party. i do a not think they realize there are constant jobs lost in the united states. companies are outsourcing jobs to places like china and india. i do not think they understand what they are doing to the people in the united states, which is wrong. i feel that if they are going to outsource the jobs, and they're going to get tax breaks, then they should be charged a higher tax and they should be punished for doing so. they are not creating jobs. host: dennis lane tweaets --

and back to states and their budget issues -- back to calls. your message to congress, in iowa, susie, republican. caller: the democrats are willing to blame the republicans for everything, but what people

need to understand is the democrats held the major control of congress up until the republicans came in. this budget was given to them in october and they could not pass it. they have a lame duck session and they did not pass it. it is a plame game. let's blame the republicans. in november we sent a message to washington, we want this congress to control their spending. we have to control hours. let them control there's. if we have to shut down the government and send a message that says, stop it, then do it. host: next is a call from meridian, ohio, mark, an independent there. caller: my comment is really basic. what i would like to see is just

anybody from congress hold up a pay stub and take a look at how much is actually taken help of a paycheck and how much actually gets taken out and then maybe they would understand, hey, wait a minute, it is costing credit to fund the government. caller: where would use -- host: where would you seek major areas for cutbacks? caller: i think the income tax is completely rk. host: when -- completely archaic. it is actually killing our nation as far as that goes. -- debt goes. i think it is $238 billion per year that it costs are nature

in -- our nation. host: we will be at this until 9:30 a.m. eastern time. then we will be talking to ed o'keefe. also in the richmond newspaper, virginian to limit abortions in help exchanges.

-- health exchanges. back to calls. your message to congress. this is in cannes, iowa, and our caller is victor, a democrat. caller: hon going to get right into it. it was reported carta months ago -- two months ago that wall street made six trillion dollars in 2009 and is expected to make between $8 trillion and $9 trillion in 2010. our federal budget deficit is $10 trillion. and we do have an income problem, don't we?

and we have those folks who belong to the 4% ", those folks who are not pay any taxes. congress made to -- congress needs to reflect the income taxes of the people. host: next call is cindy in galveston. caller: i do not care of the system has to shut down, something has to be done about overspending. i believe in equal tax for everyone or how we spend our own money. and this ssi that is going out to everyone, people receiving over $600 per month, cash plus food stamps. a lot of these people can take care of themselves. they are using our system.

what happens to us, these families that are using our system heard our families, a hard-working workers. since they do not have to pay anything and can still work under the table, they get to buy all of the extras for their children. their children get to go everywhere. but the hard working people are sitting at home and thinking, why can they do all of these things? they are getting free rides off the government. if the government needs to wake up -- the government needs to wake up and get people off of the ssi. these people are working people and they need to get to work. host: next is illinois, dirk, independent. caller: i keep wondering if people think the unemployment rate is because of jobs. some people cannot find a job and i'm wondering if it's just because some of them lost their unemployment benefits, and if

they have, how can they prove that? host: thanks, burk. let's get some other news in here. there is other news about changes in the cabinet. this one may be of interest to you, which is patraeus, that is, the -- general david patraeus is lined up to direct the cia.

back to phone calls. brooklyn, new york, george, what is your comment on the budget debate? what is your message to congress? i'm sorry, i'm going to have to move along. next is pennsylvania, alison, go ahead. caller: i understand that china is bragging that they basically ona's because of how much our loans from them and all the kind of stuff. and at the same time, we are still giving millions of dollars

in aid. i do not i understand -- i do not understand how that works. host: in the "usa today" 6 housing market hit bottom. greenville, mississippi, good morning. this is kimberly, democrats there. caller: my message to congress is for republicans and

democrats. basically, republicans should stop all of their posturing. the democrats should toughen up and put forward the message of all that they have accomplished over the years. the problem is, the republicans seem to be better of messaging and the democrats basically seem to be giving in at times to what the republicans want. now is time -- the time to put their shoulder to the grind and push forward and basically, not be bullied by the republicans. host: the "washington post" has a piece about glen becher. -- glen beck.

both sides agreed that they could not continue, but neither side blamed the other or disclose who was at fault. that is what fox and beck's co. said jointly. they made him rich elective with sponsors and they also puts him over the top with conservative commentary. back to telephone calls. and your message on the budget. next is from massachusetts. good morning. caller: it seems that republicans to about 10 years to

get into this mess and they are trying to get it all done in about one year. it should there be an 8 to 10 year plan to get us out of this mess? host: next to toronto, ohio. this is renee, independent. caller: i think we should bring our military home. south korea wants our military over there, let them pay for it. if germany what our military in germany, let them pay for it. bring all our navy home. if let the task force's go up and down the east coast and the west coast. every time a carrier pulls in, it cost over $1 million in that port. -- if it brings in over $1 million in that port. host: this tweet from jamie -- a

next is franklin, tenn.. this is michael, a democrat. caller: i believe you just have a caller mentioned that it to 10 years to get where we are, which is true and i wish people would realize it. that is exactly where we are where we are today, the past 10 years of corrupt politicians that we have had in there, especially republicans. i think it is time for them to pull together and work to get this resolved. if they want a war, they are going to get one. they'd better pay close attention to what is going on. people in other parts of the world are rising up, tired of being put in a corner and being treated like dirt. if they do not take action, people will get tired and take

action. host: here is another tweet. and from the newspapers, the "baltimore sun" was with the president. falls church, virginia, good

morning to more cco, republican. -- mauricio, republican. caller: they take taxes and now we are here in this mess. there is a solution. we can change america for good with no taxes. [unintelligible] we need to put the hard-working people in congress. host: in connecticut, russ is a n independent. caller: i want to talk about how dangerous some of these ideas

are that the republicans are putting forward. the one in particular is cutting the regulatory agencies. this has been a republican by word now for decades, really, cut regulation. when i think of cutting regulation, do these guys love and ron and bernie madoff and bear stearns all that much? when i think of cutting regulations, these are the kinds of financial disasters that i think of. and one of the problems with cutting back on red ituri agencies is that these things take decades -- on regulatory agencies, is that these things take decades. remember, and ron was the fifth largest company in america. -- enron was the fifth largest company in america. that did not happen overnight. it could be -- if they cut back now, it could be 10 years or more before the next batch of

these guys come along. that is very, very dangerous. host: from the "wall street journal," -- and also from the "washington times" --

next is san francisco as we ask what your message to congress is as we go to mary, a democrat there. you are on, good morning. caller: good morning. america has been the most wonderful country in the world, but a nation that is divided among itself will fall.

and it is terrifying. i have seen discrimination. i have seen affirmative-action. i have seen the assassination. i have seen parties with police -- bullies running congress for over 20 something years. and what is going to happen to our country? every major civilization that has ruled has come to the point where we are now. look at rome, persia, european powers, england. america is standing on the brink of destruction. we are not going back to what we said, "all men were created equal." host: last call from california. if robert is a democrat there.

robert, of your message to the congress on the budget? are you there? caller: yes, good morning. i want to say that the democrats keep saying that they want compromise, and yet, when the health care bill was there they pushed it and no compromise, the american people did not want it, they did not want compromise then. why do they want compromise now? tell the republicans just to stand up and if they need to shut it down, shut it down. no big thing. we need to cut the spending. host: robert says that shutting the government down is no big thing. our final guest this morning, ed o'keefe, will tell us what that will look like.

>> an update now on the budget negotiations on capitol hill. house speaker john vader in an interview with abc news last night says there is no daylight between him and the tea party. george stephanopoulos, who conducted the interview before the speaker went to the white house last night for the negotiating session with the president, says there was no deal reached. in his words, he said the he and the president have always had a very good relationship, but have very different visions for what the budget to a book like. the number of people seeking jobless benefits has fallen for several months now. the a four-week average has dropped by nearly 7% in the past eight weeks, what the same time, businesses are stepping up hiring.

>> this weekend on "book tv" on c-span2, the co-authors of a "y obama care is wrong for america" and then on afterwards, jeff greenfield. also this again, live coverage on the annapolis boat festival with panels on war, citizen scientist, race, and more. sign up for our "book tv" alert. >> "washington journal" continues. host: let me introduce you to our final guest of the morning, ed o'keefe. he is returning to the "washington journal" and he covers the federal work force.

our last caller, you probably heard him, he said, shut it down. it is no big deal. it is shutting the government down a big deal? guest: it is a big deal if you file taxes by paper because you might not get a refund next week. it is a big deal for the thousands of federal workers who are expected to be furloughed and would not get paid. it would be a big deal for the troops who are overseas who would not get paid any time after friday at midnight. it is a big deal. essentially, border security, air traffic controllers, military operations overseas. all of those things would continue, but there will be a severe slowdown or stoppage of government services all across the bureaucracy, whether it is small business loans, fha loans for first-time home buyers, if some community outreach efforts at the justice department. there will be a certain slowdown

of certain corners of american society. host: we are talking about the government's preparations for a shutdown and what it will look like. for this, we have added a line for federal employees. that is 202-628-0184. let me ask about the cost involved with this. earlier i showed a chart with policies from the "new york times" and it showed past shutdowns of the government. the cost have ranged in the hundreds of millions too often in the $1 billion or more. to wear those costs come from? fort: there's the potential overtime once workers review because they will have to make up for time lost. there are penalties, tied to

government contrasts -- there are penalties tied to government contracts. and then there are cost of shutting down of certain parts of the government and then restarting them. the computer systems, the fact that you have to drive out the barriers to keep people out of national parks. he may have to have extra security to keep people away from certain buildings or government structures or landmarks. once the government shutdown ends and the start of begins again, there are costs associated there as well. host: the experience that agencies have with doing this, is this an easy process? guest: it is not. no matter how much they think and no matter how much confidence the administration will convey, in their most private moments they will tell you they have no idea. there is no rule book for this. they do not know necessarily what they're doing. i talked to people of during the clinton years to said that they were basically flying by the

seed of their pants. there were memos with guidelines as to what was to happen. there were dropped during the final days of the toomey carter presidency and then revised during the reagan administration as far as what was supposed to happen to determine who would not have to shore up for work. in the last few days, a lot of -- show up for work. in the last few days, a lot of information has started to come out. but there are very detailed questions, especially for people in the washington area because a government is the industry, really. you have an incredible number of people, hundreds of thousands that have their jobs tied to the federal government. i was in a taxicab yesterday were the guy said, if you close the museums, who will i drive around the city? certainly, a lot of museums will be open, and some -- some government installations, like

engraving and printing, but the most popular attractions will not be. it is a confusing process. we are told that today, you know, managers with direct reports are supposed to have meetings and they are supposed to go through the mechanics of this and those people will learn their fate as to whether or not they will have to show up to work by friday afternoon. even if they learn their fate, they are still supposed to come in on monday to help shut down, literally turning off computers, turning off the lights, taking home plants and things like that if you are deemed nonessential. a caller's get to from fayetteville, arkansas. this is ellen. caller: my husband worked for the federal government and has always worked for the federal government. he was in the military and now he works for the v.a. system. they have told us absolutely

nothing about what is going to happen. my husband is being told that he should just go to work and we're wondering when are -- what exactly we are going to get paid. we will have to pay for gas, they for our food, pay for the mortgage and no one is telling us about when we are going to get paid. i am very concerned about what is going on in this country. i love its values and principles, but what i do not love is this pitting people against each other. and the public employees that we send there to serve us, and this information -- if host: i want to jump in a liquid because i want to talk about your lack of communication. guest: ellen, are you still there? host: i hung up. guest: figure out what part of the veterans affairs your husband works for. if he works for the veteran

telban lustration, works in one of the hospitals or the medical clinics -- veterans health administration, works and what the hospitals or medical clinics, he will have to keep working. the veterans health administration, which accounts for about two-thirds of the veterans administration, works on a two-year funding that is not tied directly to this shutdown. but there is a chance he might not have to work. if he does not give answers, you are justifiably upset. there are big parts of this government that will not be impacted by this. the entire energy department is on a new -- on a no-year appropriations cycle. they just keep getting money.

all employees are expected to show up on monday, -- on monday because there is enough money for them. ask yourself if you are a federal employee, what part of the department do our work in? i might have to keep working anyway. host: next is selma. caller: i heard a remark from a lady earlier who was complaining about people on ssi. i have epilepsy and my career was ended even before it could get started. i think it is totally unfair, some of the things that i see in the latter's death have been sent to me -- and letters that have been sent to me. keep this with the

topic. would this affect those on ssi payments getting their benefits? guest: it would. host: if you are receiving unemployment benefits, will that also be affected by a government shutdown? guest: if this shutdown is long enough, and that is defined by howard goes and your individual departments. some federal employees would be a bold -- would be eligible for unemployment benefits. say host: diego, go ahead. -- host: san diego, go ahead.

caller: even though i am united states navy, we will be affected by this. if this is not signed by april 8, we will get nothing. my husband and i are both active duty and this affects all of us. i am pregnant right now. my husband is overseas and i am still here. but we do not get paid at all after april 8 if this is not signed. and this is very frustrating, completely. guest: secretary gates today in a conversation with troops in iraq made it very clear that he is frustrated by this. but remember, you and your husband will be paid for this week. as you know, this friday is the middle of a two-week pay period for the troops. any pay after that is likely to be delayed. i will be frank. i think it is very difficult to be objective about this.

it is infuriating to be -- to think that active duty will be affected by this. the idea that those service in uniform are going to be impacted by this, i think, is just very, very difficult to comprehend. host: obviously, certain functions have been designated the central and they will continue working. guest: and what is essential at the pentagon is those in uniform who are conducting military operations. remember, there are hundreds of thousands of civilian defense department workers, most analysts and support staff and administrative personnel. they are under the same essential/non-essential classifications that every agency is expected to sort out. sutley in the park -- civilian department workers will talk to figure out their fate by friday. host: next is fort worth,

texas, linda, republican. are you there? caller: and yes, i am. host: your on the air. caller: i was wondering why the government workers, like the man and i am looking at on tv, do not cut their pay in half because they will continue to get pay what our military does not. why do they think they are worth this much money, number-one? the mayor of dallas makes $1 million per year. cut his salary in half. our troops need a raise and it needs to come out of the government officials pockets, starting with mr. obama. host: thanks for america -- for your call from fort worth. some one disgruntled about and government workers. guest: let me be clear.

i am not a government worker. i work for this place. if a budget passes, there is expected to be a very small increase in pay for the troops. but considering the sacrifice, lawmakers and others would agree it is not nearly enough. but it is a small percentage increase. and again, troops will be paid for services this week. after friday, they would be impacted by this if the shutdown continues for more than a few days. and there is a very vigorous debate going on. and linda, it is important to remember, because you heard it from the navy seal in san diego and the wife of the federal employee in arkansas, they are your friends and neighbors and they worked on the street. this shutdown has the potential

to ripple across the country into the homes of 800,000 different people and the untold number of contractors who work for the government as well. but there are conversations on going about whether there need to be changes in the pay of federal employees. some are suggesting, including in paul reihan's budget that one of this week for 2012, some suggesting that the government assured replace -- should replace those retiring with only -- kershaw replaced every three retiring with a lead to new workers -- with only two new workers. it is a big debate that is going on in city hall in dallas and also during washington. -- here in washington. host: what is the door of

federal work force, and then when you have contractors into it? -- the total federal workforce, and then when you havhad contractors into? guest: it is difficult to guess. it is 3 billion, when you include contractors anywhere from 7.5 million. others have suggested that it is up to as many as 18 million. and if you are looking at civilian employees it is around 2 million across the country. if you throw in troops, it is about 1.5 to 2 million as well. and it has grown by either to wonder thousand in the last two years or close to 100,000 -- 200,000 in the last two years, or close to 100,000. host: ted o'keefe, the federal government reporter for the "washington post."

let's go to sheila, a migrant worker from north dakota. caller: my husband is in the military. the with the government shut down coming, the military members are going to be forced to work 12-hour shifts in order to make up. however, i understand that they will not be paid. when i was furloughed, once it came back and individuals did get paid, the civilian work force was paid retroactively. why would they be getting paid for not working? and why wouldn't the military -- i know they are not allowed to strike, but it seems like slave labor when they will make up all of the work for everyone, but the civilian work force when the budget does go through, will get paid for not even working.

guest: you can see that this impacts a lot of people in a lot of different ways. if your in the military, a uniformed member of the military, you should assume that you will be retroactively pay for time served. let's take military off the table. now let's look at civilian employees like yourself. if you are deemed essential during the shutdown and you have to work, you should expect to be retroactively pay for time served. if you are furloughed, or considered non-essential, there is a big question about whether or not you will receive full retroactive pay. the congress right now was a little more fiscally conservative than it was in 1995 or 1996 when the last shutdown occurred. back then, essential and not weretiall personnel retroactively pay.

right now, they are not guaranteeing that. we will have to wait and see. people who have to work during the shutdown should expect to be paid after the fact. host: congressional workers? guest: that is an interesting one. each has until tomorrow to tell the house whether or not there will be workers furloughed. you have had several the said that all of their workers are essential and never went off to work during the shutdown. if you do not submit the paperwork by tomorrow, then the committee in charge of this in the house will assume that older workers are essential. on the senate side, it is not yet clear. they have not given very clear instructions, but we should assume that it is very similar

to the house. and we are told that committee staffers, those that work for the committees and not necessarily for a lawmaker are going to continue to work. kaine -- in a sense, they will be needed because the phone will be ringing and the members will be on the floor voting on things. host: good they theoretically close interstate highways within their borders? guest: no, the federal highway fund is a completely separate source of funding. host: and carol, good morning. -- daryl, good morning. caller: one of the comments about ripple effects, it should be clear, in my humble opinion, seems to be the intention

of things. i wrote something a while back and i would like to read it were very quickly. as a society, individually or globally, we are faced with holding production. efficiency is necessary. production demands it. excellence is based on performance. all americans are taught with the richest of platforms to draw from, or so we are told. how can the custodians of such a privilege and was designed to be the most clandestine organization on earth does regard excellence necessary to maintain privilege, not only for -- disregard excellence in this area to maintain privilege, not only for security, but to lead and to lead with the time-

honored, semper 5 example? -- semper fi example? host: we will have to leave it there. here is a tweet. do you know anything about that? guest: i do not. i would caution military members and their families, as stressed out as they may be, yes, they should probably check on these things. if they have bills that need to be paid or credited do, they will need to quickly sort that out. they will be paid for this week. after that, it is a little unclear. host: and unfortunately -- and fortunately, all of this becomes moot if they reach a deal by midnight tomorrow. guest: absolutely. host: in charlotte, curtis is a

democrat. caller: good morning. you had a caller earlier on your show that -- saying that democrats are not tough enough and they do not know how to negotiate because they are giving republicans everything they want. i want your viewers to remember that when republicans took the house back over, remember eric kanter and john boehner said that their goal was to make sure that obama, is a one-term president. it seems like they are willing to let this country shutdown to make sure that happens. host: i will let that stand as a comment and move on to the next telephone call. fla.,is st. peter's, marie is a government worker. caller: we want our congressmen and senators to have standards, but it is easy for us to say that they should not spend this or that or say this and that,

but their salaries are secure. why should they be able to pass legislation for their salaries and everybody else can go to health? guest: lawmakers have not been paid in the last two years and they are unlikely, given the current climate, to do anything different anytime soon. host: next call kentucky, greg. caller: i keep hearing about who is essential and who is nonessential. while i do not want anyone to lose their jobs, i think the government will finally get a taste of what the private sector has been going through for the last three years. it when my employer stops making money, i do not go to work that

day. that is the reality. and until the federal government feels that pain, they're never going to cut back on anything. it is time for them to tighten their wallets and figure of who they need and who they do not need. guest: let me give you a brief explainer on the central verses nonessential. if you go to washingtonpost.com /federal-eye, you will find an explanation. that means customers and border protection, troops overseas, v.a. medical staff and a private

contractor support staff that makes sure the computer systems that are needed are also running. the intelligence community is considered essential. example is the justice department. they will continue to prosecute their cases and criminal cases, but they're likely to stop temporarily there are outraged -- and there ought reach -- their outreach. spending has to be approved by the federal government. washington d.c. city has to draw what is essential and nonessential. libraries will close. the dmv will close.

and probably most offensive to d.c. residents who love it, you will not be able to go to the cherry blossoms. the cherry blossoms will be off limits not only to residents, but to tourists coming to town because it is not considered an essential function. it is a national park service. you will not be able to go to yellowstone or alcatraz in san francisco or the statue of liberty in new york. host: i encourage you to find ed o'keefe's blogs. he has a q&a that is answering a lot of the questions that we have here. you are also 29. what is your handle? guest: i am edatpost.

host: next is louis, a democrat. caller: i am 86 years old and it is very distressing listening to these republican speak like they do. the only thing i have always believed since i have been watching the news is that they are thinking about their own pocketbooks and that is why they deal with the rich. they do not care anything about the people. host: thank you very much. it is nice to have an 86-year- old perspective on this. if we have half a second. i'm going to try to get in a call from illinois. caller: it is just like private employees who go to work everyday and are not sure if their job is going to be there at the end of the day. that might be applicable to nonessential federal employes. nonessential federal employes.