budget negotiations this morning with house budget committee members reid ribble of wisconsin, republican, and congressman paul tonko of new york, a democrat. last night president obama said he hopes to avoid a government shutdown by midnight tonight. later we are joined by tom shoop who will talk about what happens during a government shutdown. >> i am expecting that as a consequence of the good work done by our stance tonight, that we can reach an agreement tomorrow. but let me just point out one last thing -- what i said to the speaker and what i said to harry reid is because the machinery of the shutdown is necessarily starting to move, i expect an answer in the morning. >> we are continuing to work toward an agreement because i do believe the -- i do believe, all

of us sincerely believe, we can get to an agreement, but we are not there yet. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: statements -- doing statements between the speaker of the house, and last night the president following another round of negotiations. the president and congressional leaders have a few hours to avert a midnight deadline. another late-night series of talks narrowing some differences on how to cut federal spending but there is still no agreement. the president is hoping to announce the deal later this morning. the associated press is indicating he is not quite optimistic. he canceled his trip to india today. the speaker of the house is scheduled to be in cleveland and that was also cancelled. in the house and senate both in session. we will spend most of the morning focusing on where things stand and will the government face a partial shutdown starting

tonight at midnight. join the conversation by giving us a call -- throughout the morning, if you are a federal employee, one of 3 million federal workers -- 800,000 that could be affected by a government shutdown, the number the call is -- let us look at headlines outside the beltway -- "the boston globe." and from "the atlanta journal constitution" on what a shutdown would mean to you. parks and historic sites and airports. tsa considered essential personnel so no impact on airline travel. in pittsburg, the headline is,

government shut down nears. under -- and "the houston chronicle." nd "richmond times does that," hometown newspaper of eric cantor. andrew taylor is covering this story for the associated press. thank you for being with us. shortly after 7:00 in the morning this friday, where do things stand? guest: it is hard to tell. yesterday there was a lot of brings minted -- brinksmanship and tough talk but there were two negotiating rounds in the white house. the issue is less about how much to cut the budget and more about how many of these republican policy provisions to include. some of them are very controversial, involving cutting off money for planned parenthood and cutting off money for president obama's healthcare of law or stripping the epa of its ability to issue regulations on a whole slew of industries.

differences yesterday were chiefly about those. there has been a perception that ultimately speaker boehner bank is going to have to give up most of the riders because president obama is not willing to accept them. they cannot get through the senate. but in exchange, i think he would like to get some more spending cuts. i would not be surprised if what he would like to do is bob the number of closer to $40 billion range we have seen published, and that would be the price for getting rid of the riders. president obama said he was not overly optimistic last night and i will take him at his word. host: this is the headline from "the baltimore sun." the baltimore-washington area, a large number of federal employees. andrew taylor, what would it look like if the government does shut down? we keep ca -- saying the partial shutdown because it would not

affect every aspect of what potentially could be -- could we face? guest: the story is really that there is less impact than you would imagine, particularly if you don't live in washington, d.c. social security checks goes out, the military stays on the job, although in an extended shutdown they might skip a paycheck but they would get reimbursed later. and if you want to go to a national park this weekend, you may be out of luck. or, into one of the smithsonian museums. but the mail would be delivered, essentials services like food inspection and guarding the borders and fbi agents and the like will all be kept on. on the other hand, if there were an extended shutdown, the white house is warning it could have an effect on the economy. host: let's go to the last 36

hours, because there was a session that took place yesterday and another session last night preceded by a late night session on wednesday with this president and now the president is saying he hopes to announce a deal later this morning. you talk about some of the so- called riders. is that a hitching point? the elimination of those -- do we have an agreement between house and senate democrats and republicans? guest: under that scenario there could be an agreement. what is noteworthy about this is bad -- that we did not really know whether what each side is doing is playing brinksmanship and showing toughness for their respective sides in the ultimate hopes of getting a deal. i think neither side wants a shutdown. i think that is particularly true -- maybe not for speaker boehner's most ardent

conservative base but i think speaker boehner nose in the event of a ship that he does not get any more leverage in the battle with the president of the states. a to the pressure is on to make a deal. certainly everyone would look back if there was a shutdown and the troops would not get paid a potentially while they are overseas fighting to and have wars. the pressure is on. the question is whether they can get to that point where they could just shake hands. host: one of the headlines in "the washington post" andy "the new york times." secretary gates said there could be potential delay and the paychecks, they are distributed the 15th and 30th of each month. guest: that is true. a lot of military families live almost paycheck to paycheck. they are not enormously well paid. and i think that is one of the chief pressure points pushing

him toward a deal. yesterday the house passed a bill that would fund the military in addition to keeping the government open for a week. there has been some whispering over in the senate that while they would take that -- -- they might get unanimous agreement to just address military pay issue. that talk itself proves how sensitive democrats are on the issue. host: talking to a detailer who covers congress for the associated press. one other issue on the table before we let you go. certainly something you and others will be following once the budget agreement is reached in the current fiscal year, and that is raising the debt ceiling. cnbc pointing out the obama administration has been sounding a hazard warning all year on the need to raise the debt limit but yet to deliver the worst news -- congress may have to raise it by more than $2 trillion in order to raise the debt ceiling beyond the november 2012 election. can you elaborate on that point?

guest: the budget deficit will be extraordinarily big this year. estimated $1.60 trillion for this year and another $1 trillion for the fiscal year which begins next october. so, yes, a big number will be needed. i am not sure they can get to dollars trillion through with one big bite. and i think the republicans, who control the house, may also see this as a way that they can get leverage to get some of their own initiatives into law. i think they may want to go in smaller increments. but again, that is a battle on a whole nother level that we are seeing here. host: andrew taylor, thanks as always for being with us. take care of the children.

"washington times" front-page story -- the story by stephen diamond pointing out high-stakes negotiations went down to the wire last night -- that was a house bill that passed along mostly partisan lines of a 15 democrats voted for the continuing resolution to keep the government running one more week. the senate democratic leader said that measure is dead on arrival and the president also indicating he would veto such a measure. so, it comes down to today. midnight is the deadline. but we could hear more later this morning. brian from san antonio. good morning on the republican line. caller: i am not really too worried about the shutdown. whether an agreement is reached or not, things are going to get

worked out in the end. i do believe that democrats are having problems with riders, the planned parenthood, with the -- what is the other one they have that they are working on? host: certainly dealing with planned parenthood, abortion, the epa funding. to reach a $40 billion target of the speaker asked for. at last count, $33 billion series of cuts by senate democrats and the speaker says that is not enough. caller: i don't think it is that bad, really. i think the democrats, when they have the house and senate and white house back in october, and they could have done the budget then. however, there were problems when they were running for election and i understand why they did not want to do the budget at the time. it would probably hurts them more in the election.

however, i don't see why it would be that much of a problem. . npr is getting a lot of private donations and planned parenthood -- i do not know of the public should be forced to pay for abortions. -- not bet really see that hard to compromise on that, even if it is under $100 billion. host: will stop you there. thank you for the call. phyllis from countryside, illinois. democrats' line. caller: good morning, a young man. 72 years old and civic duty since i was 25. what i see going on here i believe can be a power of the president to use his powers by bringing all of our troops home. they are not going to get paid -- fine, bring them home. that is over 600,000 -- $600 billion to $700 billion a year saving plus the lives. and with all the imports coming

from overseas from american companies not paying income tax, put a 25% tax on those countries, tariffs and so forth. then those american companies would have to pay the countries those 25% we would normally be getting any way. i find it despicable that they would stop our federal people from getting a paycheck, especially our troops. it is disgusting. and i am disgusted with all of congress. thank you for letting me speak. did host: thank you. you can join our conversation on line. our twitter page -- one of our viewers saying --

another story, a hearing from mr. de making news. available online. at the u.s. may consider troops in libya. carter hamm said a ground forces may not be ideal but may be possible as a way to aid the rebels. he said that yesterday before a congressional hearings. the story begins by saying the u.s. may consider troops to libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels. comments from general carter hamm overseeing operations with the nato contingent in north africa. doris is joining us from chicago -- chicago. welcome to the conversation. caller: i just want to say i have no confidence in the media at all. when you have ap, "the new york times" "washington -- " i am not listening because when conservatives moved to the right to the media moves to the right. conservative republicans are

holding the country hostage because they want to get rid of the epa. they want to roll back clearwater and they want to continue their war on women. conservatives have no respect for women. for the last 30 years voters, not the majority of people come in this country have been voting for conservatives who really hate the government. if we ran the government by the business, why would we put people in charge of the business that hates the business? that is what some voters have been doing. conservative republicans hate government. and we continue to vote these folks in in. they don't care about this country. look at all the states that want to secede. host: thank you for the call. from "the wall street journal." "who really wants a shot down close " -- "who really wants a shot down" is the title.

here is what happened yesterday as the house was preparing to vote on that continuing resolution known as a c.r. it passed the house of representatives but not move in the senate. an exchange between house republican leader eric cantor from va and steny hoyer in the house of representatives. >> there is a rational way for us to proceed, and very frankly, when we were in your shoes, we did so. when we cannot reach an agreement with president bush.

>> the house will come to order. >> the tea party on your side, as often is the case -- [crowd jeers] >> mr. speaker -- reclaiming my time. >> the german reclaims his time. >> i would say, let us look why we are where we are to begin with. [crowd cheers] we are -- the house is not in order. >> the house will come to order. the gentleman has a right to be heard. >> we have little doubt on our side of the aisle where it -- why we are here today.

>> house will come to order. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> mr. speaker, we are trying to do the business of the american people. it we do not -- we do not want to shut the gentleman down. host: congressman eric cantor and his photograph in "usa today." emotions running high on the house floor. a debate began with boos and loud applause from a full house chamber. as if they were filling rival bleachers on either side of the high-school basketball court. we have a line set aside for federal employees. michelle is joining us from san diego. it up early this friday morning. republican line. midnight is the deadline. what are your thoughts today? caller: i am not real happy what is going on. i am a military wife. my husband is deployed. i am also at an army mom --

united states navy wife and army mom. at this point in time, i feel the military should be -- i watched a lot of this going on all night. they said the military -- they are using the military as like a poker -- like a poker game. this isn't a game. our troops are over there, they are fighting for our freedom, or anybody's freedom. i did not think everybody understands that we do what's -- i don't think everybody understands we do what we do and the last thing we all need is for us -- for the men and women not to get their paycheck. no "richmond times dispatch," the headline. john cornyn saying --

potus, president of the nine states, those who agree with his policies are playing politics. an independent. caller: i am an id paid and i would like the tea party, right, those on the left, black and white, all of you. i have been screaming for years that both parties are part of the corporate class. the tea party folks, a lot of you took money from the koch brothers. if you look at the tax records of democrats and republicans, they took money from wall street, they took money from oil, from the banking industry. then when they go up here and pretend like they are fighting for the working people, the workers have been true -- totally misled.

that is why i became an independent a few years ago and i see this back-and-forth. boehner and cantor on the so- called right and obama and -- on the left, you just have to google their tax money. taking money from the banking industry, and so have the republicans. both parties. this did not just start yesterday. host: from "the wall street journal," budget is boehner's big test.

bill has this comment on our twitter page -- >> is donald, a federal employee, joining us from massachusetts. caller: good morning. i find it very interesting that the deficit hawks had a chance to include their pay and the government shutdown, which was promptly defeated -- in the government shut down. don't do as i do, do as i say. if the country really wants to recover, institute a flat fair tax for everybody. host: front page of "the new york times." policy takes center stage as the shutdown did closer.

marcia, schenectady, new york. caller: i am calling to let you know i am really sat listening to all of the rhetoric between the democrats and republicans. i am a died in the will democrat and i want officials to represent us -- dyed in the wool democrat. have the incentives for the oil companies been eliminated? they don't care about the average person who cannot afford a gas. there should be no incentive for the oil cos. if republicans really care about their constituency. and if the democrats really care. democrats should be fighting to get that incentive for oil companies taken out of the budget if it is still in there.

host: from "the financial times" -- his second late-night appearance in a row -- including speaker of the house john boehner and democratic leader harry reid. >> for us to go backwards because washington could not get its act together is unacceptable. so again, 800,000 federal workers and their families

impacted. millions of people who are relying on government services not getting those services. businesses, farmers, veterans, and finally, overall impact on the economy that could end up severely hampering our recovery and our ability to put people back to work. host: the president last night, "the new york times" this morning, their editorial --

on the republican line, nancy is joining us. clearwater, south carolina. caller: good morning, how were you? host: fine, thank you. how're you? caller: i am great. i always voted straight republican ticket and i would like to say i am the real disappointed with mr. obama but he is our president. it is ok to attack his politics but people, republicans are -- and i am a republican, are attacking his personality and him as a human being. that is not politics -- but anyhow. but i was so ashamed of the lack of wisdom, knowledge, and management of our republican senate acting like a third world country. i unlike the other lady, i am sad. a i may not call you -- i may not call you on the republican line anymore. host: are you going to switch parties?

caller: probably so. the only people i heard make any sense and stay calm, as bad as i hate to say it, is the democratic congress. host: michelle bachmann, representative from minnesota, potential gop presidential candidate -- gop budget is not extreme. he heard editorial in "usa today -- her editorial in "usa today" -- next is janet joining us from snowflake, arizona. good morning. caller: hi of wondering, has anybody tallied up how much these public servants get after they served our country?

both in salaries and benefits, from our government annually? if we were to drop those amounts of money, how much would that saved our country? host: thank you. next is louisville, ky. what is your comment as the midnight deadline looms? caller: i would like to say first of all, i think it is a disgrace. it should be a law that veterans should not be included in any kind of shut down. they should never, ever -- they should always get paid no matter what, and there should be a law that they are excluded from this kind of rhetoric. one more thing i would like to say is very important to all of the people listening to c-span. you need to seek and research to take the plan place of medicare.

if you search you will find out that all of his numbers are incorrect and he got them from what they call the heritage foundation. you will be surprised of everything you find. god bless you and have a good day. host: senator orrin hatch of tweeting on the budget -- all so tweeting on the budget. the dems are acting like these cuts are the end of the world. referring to paul ryan, plan unveiled earlier this week. if you would like to hear his speech or his news conference it is all on the c-span video library at c-span.org. -- tax about ryan's leak reform that even the president says he needs.

comments of charles krug hammer -- krauthammer. in "the new york times" -- the view of david brooks this morning. yesterday, before reporters, chuck schumer, democrat of new york, critical of the tea party in speeches and on the issue of abortion, saying republicans are forcing a social agenda rather than a fiscal agenda when it comes to budget negotiations. >> it is the ideological riders that have nothing to do with a deficit that are standing in the way. it would be a tragic mistake to force a government shutdown, but doubly tragi if the shutdown

were on issues not related to spending. the opposition to their riders on women's health issues is bipartisan. senators collins, murkowski, and brown have come out against the anti-planned parenthood rider. at the republican should not try to impose a measure on the budget that would not pass the senate standing on its own. host: comments of senator charles schumer yesterday afternoon. the shutdown looms as last- minute budget talks continue. the headline this morning from "the financial times" and the other headline we referred to earlier, "obama silence draws focus do hard-line caucus."

jade is joining us, a federal employee from fayetteville, north carolina. what do you do, by the way? caller: my husband is in the military and people don't realize how much it does affect the military. it's not fair they are holding us hostage, the livelihood of our children, and we don't know if we are going to be able to feed them two weeks from now. we do not know if they are going to have food and shelter come two weeks from now because of these people can be grown up and sit down and come up with a budget. if you can't come up with a budget, do the things that are asking for, where we just give the government one more week to figure out what they need to do to get everything settles. yesterday i was watching c-span all day, and i thank you for the coverage of everything yesterday, and the democrats wanted to say, fine, you know

what, what ever it takes. and republicans just kept asking for more. i think that is ridiculous. beyond ridiculous that they are holding us hostage and holding our children and families hostage for something ridiculous like this. host: a couple of questions. first of all, if the government did have a shut down -- do you have savings or are you living paycheck to paycheck to take care of your family? caller: most of the military women live paycheck to paycheck. right now we are just sitting here waiting to figure out if today is doomsday for us or if we are going to survive. host: thank you for the call. how many children? caller: i have 3. host: appreciate the call from fayetteville, north carolina. janet, republican line, colorado springs. caller: good morning, thank you. in the past i have been a republican because we on a small business but i don't understand

what the republican party has become. the tea party people think they speak for the whole country but they don't. they don't even speak for all of the republicans. these riders, we can't let them go through. i am an older lady. i fought for years for women's rights and i cannot see where they can hold us hostage. my son in law goes to afghanistan in june, and they are worried about how they will make their payments. i hate being held hostage. and i don't care what everybody thinks -- or the way i talk -- i have been a republican but i am so frustrated with this tea party that i on going to vote democrat this next time. we need to get them out of there because they are going to destroy everything we work for for so many years and i am very upset and my heart goes out to the sport gal who called in. i thought they were going to cry. everybody is living paycheck to paycheck these days.

maybe washington is out of touch. i am a republican and i am mad as heck at this tea party. host: a couple of e-mails again -- elizabeth in arizona -- meanwhile, if you were in seattle, washington -- finally, heard in wisconsin -- -- herb in wisconsin -- tell us what you are thinking. the deadline is midnight. you will certainly hear from the president at some point. he will cancel the trip to indianapolis. the house will convene at c-span at 10:00 eastern, just under two

and a half hours. pam, independent line. caller: please, do not cut me off. i have three things. the last three of four callers, i am just agreeing with them because they know that the law is the law you cannot use money for abortions. they always bring up the issues. the poor girl in the service -- republicans are always using the troops. they could have put a clean bill in for the troops if they wanted to get some more spending cuts. no, they wanted to put the rider on that bill. of the president said he would veto it. republicans know it would not get through the senate in the first place. and then, the first, what you call it, negotiation from boehner, it was 31 million, that

is what he asked for -- the gate from $32 billion that he wanted to come back and jacket up to 61 billion, the total is $73 billion now that they are willing to give to the republicans. they are just trying to destroy anything, any social program out there. people are hurting, and it is just wrong. host: let me take your call and bring your attention to the " post" who has a pretty good summary about where things stand. -- bring your attention to the "new york post."

funding changes should be separate from the budget, but democrats say, and republicans want to put -- quit tax -- prohibit tax payer funded abortions in the nation's capital. addressing some of these issues in general terms after an afternoon session in the white house. >> our goal is to reduce spending in order to lead to a better environment for job creation in america. i do believe it is important we take this moment, get the large spending cuts possible, that will help our economy and help job creators back to creating jobs. host: speaker boehner was at the white house yesterday. a photograph from "the washington post." two sides not budging. dominic is joining us from point pleasant, new jersey, republican line. caller: i am a republican, and although i am upset with the republican party due to the fact that they decided to cut $100

billion and pell grants. i did not see how it is logical when in reality we are the future of america -- i don't see how it is logical. it does not make any sense. the government is trying so hard to fix the problem right now, but in the long run, we are the future. i just don't think it is right. host: thank you for the call. a couple of you funded about the situation with the u.n. does military. a story both in "the new york times" nd the washington post." secretary gates and baghdad, concerned about the shutdown's affect on troops. -- secretary gates in baghdad. if the shutdown lasted through the second half of april, paychecks would stop until the federal government resumed operations.

sal is joining us from holbrook, new york. good morning. actually we will go next to alberto, a government employee in florida. welcome to the conversation. what do you do for the federal government? caller: i actually work for the air force and i build some of the new weapons systems that come on line. but people don't realize there is a lot of federal workers that work with the military as well. and most of us will be laid off with this farlow -- furlough, and a lot of us are retirees, too. as retirees we have always taken a pay cut the last two years -- have not gotten the cost of living increase. host: we will go next to sal

from hoboken. caller: people don't realize how much of this war is costing us every month, billions of dollars. and our troops should get paid. no question. but we need to stop sending people over there. i found out, since my son is in the service, more trips to iran, -- into bahrain. if they want to make cutbacks, start bringing armond home and stop may stick -- wasting money because this man is never going to end. they have been fighting over there for 3000 years and this will never end. i think it is time we stop spending money on this war. if they stop $1 billion a month on the war this country would have plenty of money. one thing, a soldier in afghanistan, in the mountains, this kid has no socks -- he used most of its money, because the military has to pay for their own clothes and a lot of people did not realize, the man i met in a doctor's office he sends

his son a package -- i am sorry, every week he sent a package but if he does not get the package -- he is sitting in afghanistan with one's thinking pair of socks and this is how the government treats the military and not one to take away the pay. it is time for everybody to go home and that these people by their own battles. host: thank you for the call. one of our other viewers. we will read your tweets and those are members of congress. there is a story in the "wall street journal" website dealing with the jobs in the economy and if you have been to a shopping mall you have probably seen a lot of vacancies. even as the economy picks up steam -- steam, many of the malls and shopping centers are suffering a hangover due to changes in consumer habits and the fallout from the massive fromboom. mall vacancies had the highest level in at least 11 years

according to new figures from real-estate researchers. the outlook is especially bad for strip malls and neighborhood shopping centers, their vacancy rate is expected to top nearly 12%, up from 10.9%, the highest level since 1990. barbara from odessa, texas. republican line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? caller: fine, thank you. how are you? caller: we are great. there is so much to discuss. we had more than 50 years of democrat rule with a little into minted republicans. there's a whole lot of demagoguing and lots and lots of media coverage that is completely skewed. the republicans are working on a c.r., and they do not want to unfund the military. not at all. humongous a budget.

it is not a budget, it is outrageous. a $3.50 trillion. does anybody understand what a trillion dollars is? we cannot sustain that. and the budget was for october, so democrats were supposed to have passed a budget before the election. host: -- that was one of the arguments because they did have the house and senate and the white house last year. caller: exactly. it is politics. they wanted it to hold it over so it is something -- great planners when it comes to this -- to politicize the budget. oh, we are going to start all people in the military will not get their pay -- starve all people, and 700,000 government employees will be out of work. what is going on here? there is $60 million they have

gone for -- i am hoping -- i am not a tea party member -- that is just people who are grass roots. the backlash of seeing the incredible amount of spending, which is taxpayer dollars. host: thank you for the call. running short on time. appreciate your call and comments. later in the program, congressman paul tonko, a democrat from new york, member of that house budget committee, and tom shoop, editor in chief of "government and executive" magazine on what a shutdown would look like. another, from one of the viewers -- referring to the epa. russ from indian river, michigan. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, please. caller: good morning. host: good morning. how are you today? caller: fine.

i would like to ask a question, how many troops do we have overseas? how much are they paid? bring them home. put them on the border. and where do they spend their money? they spend their money in foreign countries. if we brought them home, they would spend their money in america. they would create lots of jobs. i am a retired teacher, 78 years old. i have been around a while. i hope to be around much longer. and i hope the tea party sticks to their guns. shot her down. -- shut her down until america wakes up. host: another viewer saying -- lots of different opinions and ways for you to participate with

email and our twitter page. one final editorial from "the washington times." government shutdown survival guide. the piece says mostly it will affect 800,000 bureaucrats not related to the safety, security, or proper functioning of the government. coming up in just a couple of minutes, representative reid ribble will join us. a former roofer from the green bay, wisconsin, area, a member of congress and member of the house budget committee. a republican. as "washington journal" continues. it is friday, april 8. back in a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, a look at the coat president lincoln was wearing at ford's theatre. george shultz on working at the nixon white house and behind- the-scenes efforts on school desegregation. hear from the descendants of slaves who traveled the underground railroad to freedom in michigan. the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history or press the c-span alert button to get the schedules e-mail directly to you. >> this weekend on the book tv on c-span2, the co-authors of "y obamacare is wrong for america" present criticisms. on "after words" 3 alternate histories -- jfk administration that never was, robert kennedy's presidency, and the reelection

of gerald ford and subsequent defeat of ronald reagan. he is interviewed by former " nightline" anchor ted koppel. live coverage of the annapolis boat festival with panels on war, citizen scientists, race, and more, the pope complete schedule on booktv.org or get them e-mailed directly to you by signing up for the alerts. >> as a host and i think as a traitor, you are not necessarily a republican and democrat, but looking at the impact of what the government is doing on the financial markets, whether it be the oil markets for treating or walls -- trading or wall street firms. >> melissa lee on her career and influences and what she believes her role is reporting business and financial news. what to the rest of the interview sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on "q&a." >> as washington works on funding for the current fiscal year, debate has also started on next year's federal budget.

see what has been said from capitol hill to the white house. online but the c-span video library -- search, watch, clip, a share, with everything we covered since 1987. it is what you want, when you want to. >> "washington journal" continues. host: over the course of this morning we will check in with members of congress. we want to welcome representative reid ribble, republican of wisconsin, member of budget committee, a freshman. guest: thank you for having me on. host: what will happen today? guest: not sure. i think the senate with a simplified things a little bit past something. we send 67 proposals and they have not acted on any of them. it is difficult. the members of the house are a little in the dark until the speaker comes back and tells us what is going on over at the white house or the halls of the senate. if the senate would act on a bill, craft some ideas of their

own, we might be able to have a little more for road debate but at this point i am not sure. host: one of the comments from steny hoyer saying why would the house passed -- walt the house passed a clean c.r.? guest: there is no such thing as a clean c.r.. it is political father -- but every statement you make on cutting spending and that being some type of policy statement. if we say we would cut $8 billion from the usda, department of transportation, at the end of the day that is a policy statement of some type. the idea that this is clean or not clear, i don't necessarily buy it. host: in light of everything you are dealing with in this congress -- you will vote on the debt ceiling at some point, you will work on next year's budget which would include a far deeper cuts than being proposed right now. if congress cannot agree on a $7 billion difference -- house republicans have a plan of $40

billion in cuts and house and senate democrats, $33 billion in cuts. that is only $7 billion. a lot of money. if you cannot agree to this how can you agree to bigger cuts down the road? guest: difficult, for sure. that is put into perspective. the cbo said in the last six months the government spent $860 billion in deficit. in march, $889 billion in deficit. what our c. r. did it, at the 61 billion level, not $40 billion, but at $61 billion, cutting $8 billion a month from $189 billion. if our c. r. had been in place, the back -- the idea that this is draconian it is not true. we would of cut deficit spending in march from 189 billion down to $181 billion. i think it is a legitimate debate to have on our side to say maybe we have not gone far enough. host: this is how open openly oppose" is putting this. the sticking pulled the, planned

parenthood, epa, the health care, and the issue of d.c. abortions. and these issues be resolved in the next few hours? guest: i am not sure. we have to see what the whole package looks like. there may be some movement, for sure. i do not think anybody is itching for a shutdown -- not on our side, anyway. we do not think a shutdown is the right approach. but we have to send a message. somehow we have to get the senate to understand we have to take be serious. host: of the government doesn't shut down -- i know this is new -- guest: i think it is new to everyone. we had it in 1994 and 1995, but there is not much of a historical precedent. host: how long do you think it will last? guest: i think it will not last long. from a little history, i did not fit will last a long time but i hope today we could find some convergence of ideas. host: how would you describe the overall mood in washington of

your colleagues? guest: frustrating. i think on my side, many of them freshmen members particularly are frustrated. a lot of us came out of private sector where decisions like this are relatively straightforward. they become more actuarial than anything. you have to make hard choices every single day. americans across this land have had to make hard choices. i have business associates of mine who were in the roofing industry who saw their businesses shrink by 30% to 40%. others in construction and development, where they have lost their companies. there have been major rollbacks in the private sector and everybody back home is saying why can't the government roll back at least a little? i think there is frustration. host: we will get to your calls and comments. in numbers at the bottom of the screen -- send us an e-mail or check us out on twitter. host: you are new converts.

would you consider yourself part of the tea party caucus? guest: i am not a member of the official caucus but i did have tea party support. there are nine different tea party is in my district. very diverse. one might be focusing just on constitutional issues. another one might be focusing primarily on spending. others might be on family values. they vary from tea party to tea party. very distinct, very unique. it is certainly not monolithic like i think many people -- people believe it to be. it is not. host: when senator schumer says speaker boehner bang is beholden to the tea party caucus, 87 freshmen, what is your reaction? guest: i think he is beholden to members of congress on both sides. he is the speaker and carrying a pretty heavy load. he has people talking to him all the time. but even within the 87 freshmen members, we all very. some are like me who are very pragmatic and my approach. others are more direct and a little more in your face.

and some are quite quiet. i would say more moderate than some of the others. so, it really varies. there is no uniform freshman member. we all look a little bit different. host: both the president, senate democrats and republicans say they agree on spending cuts. the question is where they take place. i wouldn't do it wanted to broaden this out -- congressman paul ryan put together a plan that among other things would cut spending over the next decade by $6 trillion, would reduce and cat out the tax rate to 25% for americans and will also turn medicaid into block grants for states. explain how that would work? guest: sure, i did not know which one you want me to take first. in the broad sweep of things, we are looking for a way to find a path of prosperity for children and grandchildren. i ran because i was concerned

about my grandchildren. when i got here i got more concerned about my children because we are getting toward an end point, here. but as far as the block grants, many governors said to us, let us administer these programs. we are closer to it. we know who our people are. we are better at holding are things accountable and i think we ought to respond to that. is there disagreement among governors? sure. on medicare reform, the idea we can get our arms around the city around it to provide for seniors the same coverage and choices i have as a member of congress. we heard that a lot in the campaign did just let us have the same thing you have. if you do not like the affordable health care act, let us have the plan members of congress have. we are providing that for them. giving them a choice. then the big broad scope is how we are going to get control of overall spending. and how will we spread the, -- if we can take someone from getting food stamps or welfare

checks, instead getting a payroll check, it is a double move on the economy and revenue and can improve a circumstance quickly. we are taking the president at his word when he said at the state of the union he would like -- like a flatter, broader tax code for corporations. we would like to give it to him. host: as the president lead on the budget? guest: he provided a budget. i do not think he led all the key drivers of debt and deficit because he was silent on the things driving it -- medicare, so security, medicaid. he punted, exactly as paul ryan said. host: and raising the debt ceiling. cnbc said if you want to raise the debt ceiling to get this through next november, 2012, congress would have to support $2 trillion in debt ceiling. if you go into debt clock,org, approaching $50 trillion for this country -- this year alone, $1.50 trillion. what will happen? guest: not sure.

but i think at the end of the day the debt ceiling would go up. deprograms codified by law -- medicare, social security, medicaid, and they are absorbing -- that mentors section is absorbing much of the revenue coming in. even if we eliminated everything else -- department of transportation, shut down, usda, said it down, epa, shut it down, get rid of it, you would not get to a balanced budget. the debt ceiling will have to go up. but here is my take. if in fact the senate and president are not willing to cut of the credit card -- if they are unwilling to say we are not going to cut spending, it will be difficult to get the votes to move the debt ceiling up. if i had a son and daughter who had a credit-card and ran that the bill, we would have to pay the bill but i would be a little foolish if i let the credit card in their hand. that is the debate you will have the debt ceiling. we will save d.c. what happens sometimes in the middle of may.

host: reid ribble, a freshman republican from wisconsin. chris from new haven, connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. representative reid ribble. my dad used as a common sense. you got to spend money to make money. the private sector is not spending any money. it seems to we have to get people back to work. it doesn't make a difference in terms of the tax it that the people are going to pay on their employment. we need infrastructure, which we have not invested in for a decade. we have wasted our money by killing people all over the world. our people are suffering. i don't know if you listen to the previous segment. people are out there crime. our soldiers are not going to be paid. we have a group of people on

the steps of congress saying, shut it down. does not make any sense to me, sir. guest: there is a lot of what you said that i agree with. i think that there is a role for government. if i did not think there was any role, i would not have come here or run for congress. i also think that the idea of investment in key areas makes sense. he mentioned it infrastructure. i agree with that. i want to make sure that the trust fund is not stolen for highway and road construction. we need to do those kinds of things. we should maintain the infrastructure in this country. i think it is important if we look of the broad terms as a business owner, we often would borrow money to invest in something that would have a return in the future.

we need to choose correctly. maybe we should be investing and find a cure for alzheimer's. is a debilitating disease that often does not kill a senior in the short term. it is usually expensive for a society, for families, and for anyone who has been afflicted with the disease. we could save money in the long run by drawing those costs down. i do not disagree with the caller on some statements. but there is a misnomer to say that we're not spending any moment predict any money at all. host: what is your business background? guest: i am a commercial roofing contractor by trade. my company did commercial buildings around the united states. i employed dozens, hundreds of people in my lifetime. i know about about commerce. host: steny hoyer has shut down

-- he said a shutdown is not good for our country. we have net 70% of the demands. they refused to compromise because of social policy. guest: i would disagree that they have met 70% of our demands. i have not seen what they have come back with. i hope i will see it today. the bigger 30,000-foot view is $8 billion of cuts so draconian that we cannot move this ball forward. host: brad on the republican line. caller: good morning. i like to say i'm not a tea party member. i would like to thank c-span. about the so-called riders, democrats wanting to fund those epa and the planned parenthood

that are riders in the same sense that they have been in power so long and have funded them so highly, they are not all like abortion. they are funding of it. i think in the shutdown is the only democrat's had because the republicans have put forward an idea. the democrats have not passed any idea. guest: i agree with the caller. every single financial decisions made is a policy decision of some type. he mentioned the epa. republicans and business owners -- i have to its adult children and two grandchildren. i want to breathe clean air. i want my children and grandchildren to swim in clean lakes. the idea that we want to rape

and pillage the environment is going to result in catastrophic things. i think it is ridiculous. the epa is well-founded. in many cases, it is overreaching. during the campaign, we would time how long it would take before some member of the audience would mention the epa. some have said the epa has declared war on my company. that is a tragedy. somebody moving forward commerce in these difficult economic times would say something about a government agency. we need government to work with business to create jobs, not fight against them. i do think we to hold them accountable for doing the right thing. we need to do this in a pragmatic way. host: lowry has this point.

guest: -- larry has this point. guest: we have to accept the fact we're underfunding them or we have to find a different path. i think paul wright has laid out a path for prosperity in his budget. he has done what the caller is kind of talking about. let's address these. the president chooses not to address them. let the debate begin. this is what i would ask the american people to do. i would ask that we have a grown-up conversation. i would ask that we talk to each other with respect, that we treat each other with respect. there are true differences, but we can do that anyway that we can still move an advanced policy for. the american people deserve a congress that acts like

congress, not 6-year-olds. host: the committee came forth with the recommendation that goes even farther than culberson paul ryan -- then congressman paul ryan. guest: the idea behind the budget is that we have control of just the 112th congress. they would like to see us move more aggressively on the front and. approach is more of it ramp up on the cutting of the spending. you see more is to get into yearbook 3, four, 5, and so on. you have to begin to shape policy. i support what the rc is doing and support what paul ryan is doing. we now have two good plans to talk about. i would like to see the democrats' plan.

host: mary from ohio. caller: i am retired. the government will shut down in the 1990's. there wasn't any contractors. we were off. we are off i think it was a week or so. we had to go file for unemployment and the work piled up. it cost a lot of money to shut the government down. it was crazy. that is the thing i wanted to say. when i worked, government and business worked hand in hand. the contractors were not -- we had to please the contractors. they come out half of those

jobs. there is so much money that has war.to that in rocraq this is has made money off of that. as the government worker, i may have of what my counterpart was making in business. they start out low and then they raise, raise, and we end up spending more on the same thing. we had to amend contracts to change a light bulb, for heaven's sake. host: mary, thank you for the call. guest: i appreciate her service working in ohio. i think she said short wright- patterson air force base.

there is waste and fraud in the system. i have noticed it here. i noticed how difficult it is to get things done. in my desk, sitting on one of the end tables in my office, a lamp does not work. there are rules about not plugging it in. it kind of reminds me of a lot of things in government. host: you cannot even plug in your own lamp. guest: we need to have someone come and take care of that for us. this is systemic throughout government. that is a beautiful lamp but it does not work. i think the government is that way. all these work rules get built up over time. she talked about changing a light bulb. i think her white oak is probably accurate. there are ways -- i think that is accurate.

tour ways we can cut without seniors not getting health care and all these things that are kind of being painted. we're trying to create an efficient government. i would talk to members of the audience when campaigning. hundreds of people. "do you think the government has at least 5% waysste?" up.y hand would ago i think there is enough waste so that if we begin to take money away from some of the agencies and we begin to get serious about cutting spending, good managers at the affairs bureaucracy will create a leaner practices and be more efficient. host: then go back to this lamp of yours. guest: it cannot be plugged in. host: can you bring in your on

extension cord? guest: i am not supposed to. host: we have a tweet. guest: i agree. i think there is a misunderstanding about the budget. the budget is merely a framework. it sets the parameters of what we can do. it establishes the caps on spending. then various committees will take that free-market and apply policy to it. i agree with the caller -- with the e-mail. host: the morning, steve -- good morning, steve. caller: a couple of points. any house member, republican or democrat, that was in the

congress last year and not pass a budget abdicate their responsibility and should not be allowed to participate or votes on the remainder of this year's budget. you had a cult that said it did not matter whether government jobs -- even a caller that said it did not matter whether government jobs -- the private sector taxes pace not know when the salary for federal employees, the taxes, their benefits, pensions, it is all paid by the private sector. it takes money out of the private sector and hurts the economy. finally, you mentioned earlier shutting down some agencies. if you guys pass a law law that says only constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government will be funded by the house of representatives, that would eliminate a lot of the waste.

the government does not need to be involved in energy and education and epa. none of that stuff is given to the congress to handle. but the constitution. guest: interesting comments. this of the typical. i agree with almost everything -- i think i agree with everything he said. this is typical of many of the groups out there that are looking to get the congress to begin to focus more on what the constitutional limitations of government really are. we started this congress by reading out loud from the house chambers the united states constitution. it was an interesting display. i wish we had done it differently so did not take a couple of hours to do. but we read the constitution. now we're citizens it's just

like the caller asking for us to govern that way. his point about the congress -- we have to remember that the democrats control the house, the senate, and the white house. there's no legitimate reason that we're having this debate today. host: you have the house. guest: we're in last year's budget cycle. have they passed a budget last year, we would not be having this conversation today. he is correct. i find disingenuous that now the left is the crying over what to do when they have the authority in the 111th to do so and to pass a budget, and this debate would not be going on today. host: chris has this point. guest: i guess you can label it however you want to label it. i do not believe they are it wrecking crew.

they are concerned with what they think are legitimate limitations. the constitution does put some limitations and it does provide enumerated powers. if we could get back to a place where we return more power back to the states, i think that would be an improvement on how we govern. i think we would begin to root out waste. i'm not going to accept the label that they are a wrecking crew. some of them themselves may except that's -- may accept that. host: this is from another viewer. vernon is joining us from dayton, ohio. caller: host: -- caller: good morning. i have been listening to this rhetoric.

the waste, fraud, and abuse is in the congress in washington, d.c. i am a retired government employee myself. i'm also a veteran. i worked for years as a civilian for the air force and for the corps of engineers and for the state department at wright- patterson and 15 years overseas in mostly hot areas. what i'm saying about the waste, fraud, and abuse is is in congress right now. with the lobbyists and the old payola, this can be sold by one thing. this is not rocket science. they should do what they need to do and that is to go back and tax the rich, the extra-rich, the over-rich people as they should be doing. the rich do not pay the taxes to

the government. they will reinvest it within their own industry. that will create the jobs and bring it back up. this has been done almost under every republican administration all the way back to roosevelt. guest: first of all, thank you for your service for my father was a u.s. marine himself. i appreciate your service to the country. let's talk about the idea that this is a republican problem. this is not a republican or democrat problem. this is a policy problem. the more the government chooses to regulate business, the more you will see business get involved in government. woodrow wilson warned the congress that if they continue to regulate and over regulate business, business will forever

mary itself to washington, d.c. -- will forever marry itself to washington, d.c. if we want to have smaller government, if we want to have less lobbying, we need to have less involvement into those areas. and then we would. about taxing the rich. we give too many breaks to the rich and the super rich. i do not think it is definable. all of it is -- at any point, the government decides to attack somebody, they are taking somebody's personal private property to use it someplace else. at what basis do we say that we should take more from one citizen that we take from another? i think there is a legitimate debate and discussion that

concentre around that idea. hopefully this congress will begin to take on tax reform and begin to have that debate. host: when you see a company like g.e. the was able to write off some losses and paid zero taxes in 2010, is that fair? guest: that is not fair at all. it is offensive to me as a business owner that pays taxes. i believe we need to have a flatter tax rate for corporations to make a more competitive around the world. we need to close loopholes. if we can do that, we will increase revenue. host: the democrats had the house and senate last year and should have passed a budget then.

host: senate democrats were not able to support a budget plan. guest: now we're seeing the same thing having -- happening. they can seem to get something done over there. at the end of the day, they have the bully pulpit of the white house. they had a powerful speaker of the house of representatives and a powerful majority leader. this is a difficult thing. politics are not for the faint of heart. this goes back to our earlier conversation. we need to begin to have this adult conversation. we to involve more people in the process. host: another reviewer has is comments -- has this and comment. good morning, tiffany.

caller: my husband is retired military. i don't have advice. how is this going to affect my husband's retirement from the u.s. military if the government is to shut down? and maybe something to throw when -- we have people that are sending money to the other countries, and i understand that is needed at times. when our country is in need of aid, what can we rallied together and do the same day to put back into our government? guest: as far as your husband's benefits, from everything i can tell, those benefits will be secure, as our social security checks and things like that. secretary gates has said we need to get certainty within our military. he wanted the appropriations

bill passed through the end of the year so he can execute his job. our amendment yesterday that we approved would have done that. i am hoping we can provide certainty for our military families sooner rather than later. host: 1 not tie the debt limit and cut spending by one trillion dollars? guest: i think you are going to find the debt limit vote attached to something. not to hold a club over it, but the american people want us to control this debt before ruins all of us. at some point we have to control the spending side. whether we get hard commitments on budget pass it to control it, something like that should be done.

host: good morning, tony. caller: representative ribble, a couple of issues i wanted to talk about have already been g talked aboutbeen g.e. -- have already been talked about like g.e. the one moment the call to talk about the light bulb being changed, do know which company subs out to do that? guest: i do not. it may vary. i am not sure. caller: is the one they brought up -- they got these tremendous -- you guys are giving them billions of dollars in taxes in what a lot of people would call corporate welfare.

that is the type of thing i would suspect that g.e. would probably be the ones changing the like polyps. they -- changing the light bulbs. guest: i appreciate the call. sitting on the coffee table in my office is an actual hard copy of the internal revenue tax code. in a skillet 10,000 pages long. buried -- it is nearly 10,000 pages long. our tax code is hopelessly complex. it needs to be simplified. the president has called for it. hopefully we'll be able to get legitimate tax reform done in this year. i hope we do not wait. host: james has this point. guest: i appreciate the comment

on the fair tax. during my campaign, i supported the fair tax and the flat tax. i will support tax simplification in whenever what we can get it done. if it is the fair tax and we can eliminate the income tax, i could support that. i cannot support a national sales tax with the income tax. the fair tax is a legitimate tax reform proposal that should be debated on the floor of the house and the senate. a flat tax should be debated. tax simplification in true real terms should be debated. host: will you get paid if the government shuts down? guest: yes. i have decided that i will donate any wage i received during the shutdown to charity in wisconsin to support veterans. host: john on the republican

line. caller: i have a few questions for the congressman. the first question i have, he speaks about constitution. the congress passed a bill the of the day that says that a bill can be a lot if is passed by the congress, and that is not the case. you speak about federal employees. federal employees pay taxes. people talk about -- they do not pay taxes. they pay taxes, too. he talks about the distinction as far as the subsidies. the oil companies make some much money. congress is say, we're not giving any foreign subsidies. guest: i appreciate the comments.

i do not disagree. he is talking about a bill that passed the floor of the day that would save the senate that they have the to accept hr1. i voted against it on constitutional grounds. i did not think it passed the test so i voted against it. federal employees do pay taxes. the federal government also pays wages. do we have the correct number of employees? we have a $1.7 trillion. on the tax subsidies oil, i don't disagree with that. we need to be looking at all the slings to make sure our tax policy is fair. host: david from mclean, va.

caller: don't cut me off. i would like to know in 2004, did you vote for president bush? guest: i did vote for president bush both times. caller: in those eight years, this economic was a -- it is 8 disastrous economy. -- it is a disastrous economy. you're talking about cutting this and that. you have to reflect on your past. you had said that we should get rid of the department of transportation and the department of education. in china and brazil and india, 60 y graduate 50,000 to 200

engineers a year. guest: the idea of the republican congress -- the congress itself changed in the 2006 election. president bush had a republican congress through 2006. i campaigned against a republican congress in 2006 and 2004. i felt they were spending too much money. whether mistakes made -- were their mistakes made -- were there mistakes madae? sure, there were. firstpresident obama's tier, there were spending one trillion dollars in deficit in

nine months' time. to lay this at the feet of george bush is a democrat talking point and i guess that is how it goes. i would disagree and the mathematics do not concur with it. the idea that we're moving -- losing ground in education -- we're spending more than any industrialized country in the world educating our children. our results are not very good. we need to get to a place where we start to hold our government schools accountable for what they are doing and how they are teaching to our children and getting the performance that they should be getting for young children. host: representative ribble, thank you for being with us. one note on the possibility of a government shutdown. one employee wants to take this family to colonial williamsburg, the family -- the president and

his first family. the first family planning to take the girls to colonial williamsburg, a two-hour drive from washington, d.c. there will spend two stays at the historic location. if the government does shutdown, the white house will cancel the trip. coming up, we'll continue our conversation with democrat paul tonko from new york as we continue on this friday morning, april 8. top winner ina the student cam competition. today we go to towson, md., and talk with the third-prize winner, a senior in high school. hello, matt. why is the education -- why is the issue of education fund important to you?

>> it is important because we have technology evolving so rapidly and new jobs are being created. education funding is necessary to keep up with these advancements. as students, we can learn to use the technology. we cannot fall behind. what is race to the top? >> what it does is it sets out criteria for states to follow an then evaluates how each stayed has modified their education policies to comply with those rules. they focus on things like, do they have grade teachers perfect how successful have they been? there is an emphasis on science technology, engineering, and math. >> what is the education reform

act of 2010? >> the maryland governor introduced the act, which outlines policy and evaluates -- how you evaluate teachers and it was just o a stepne to meet the -- it was just a step one. i think it's a combination. there's a mis right baseline standardized education in things like math, reading, or writing. i think that's to be set by the government. there may be topics that are only personate to students in certain geographic regions that the federal government should not say we need to study. for example, there are things may be here on the east coast in maryland that we need to learn or as on the west coast, we may not need to learn those things. the federal government is saying everyone needs to learn

those things and it gets shifty. things like reading and writing of the base skills that everyone needs to have. everyone should have a balance of power. pitcher bobby on one side. >> what are some areas that you think need the most improvement in maryland? >> the emphasis on standardized testing. i don't just mean testing. advanced on the ap exams. maryland has the highest death -- has some of the highest ap scores in the country. pressure to do well is causing students -- they are being -- students are --a being forced to take ap class is.

>> thank you for joining us today. here is a brief portion of matt's documents. >> competition drives people to do better. there has been no competition for a long time among schools. now there is a race to the top. look at what the says with introducing competition. it says not all schools will be equal. then the challenge becomes, how do you make those more competitive? >> when you have a competition when the wrist some winners and losers, and when you have to help all kids, there will always be criticism that happens to the kids in the states that the? not with >> each state has its own needs. you have small states like maryland, rhode island, competing with some states like texas, pennsylvania, and

california to get funding. what is prudent for a student in california to have and what someone in maryland has maybe totally different. >> it is great to try to see promising -- to try to seed promising programs. how will the help all kids get a promising education? >> you can see all the documentary's and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. host: we want to welcome back paul tonko, a member of the budget committee. thank you for being with us. guest: it is good to be with you. host: where do we stand? guest: i am hopeful we can come to a successful conclusion. i know that last night the president met at the white house

with speaker boehner and with majority leader harry reid. the reports were that they made progress and that they are moving closer to resolve. i don't think it is about the numbers. i think it is about some of the that are associated with this. if we can acknowledge that these other policies are best dealt with in a legislature that can be introduced before the committees, i think we can millage shot -- i think we can nail it shut. host: "we will continue to work through the night." is anyone pushing for a government shutdown? guest: i saw some joyful expressions when the possibility of a shutdown were mentioned. i find that incredible. i think we should be of the

mindset that a shutdown is not helpful. it is costly to taxpayers. it causes further delay in getting to what the voters really want us to accomplish. that is job creation and addressing the strengthening of our economy. i think the whole shut down situation is unnecessary and if people can just stay to the budget discussions, i think the numbers are there. i would pick knowledge every time we move, i think my conference has moved tremendously to try and build a consensus. but every time you moved to near completion, they moved the goal line. i think it is the extreme, reckless response from some elements within the republican ranks, primarily driven by the tea party, situation that is causing the delay. host: if there's an inability to

reach an agreement on a budget that separates democrats and republicans by about $7 billion, how can congress and the white house work on a longer budget agreement for next year and beyond to reduce what is approaching a $15 trillion debt? guest: i find right now that our middle class has got to be a laser sharp focus. the middle class has taken it on the chin. they need to have their purchasing power strengthen. without a strong middle class, you don't have a strong america. with the budget being -- the budget needs to be seen as something more than just bean counting or ledgers as accountants would approach them. you need to put a human face and

we know that we can all the college that the middle class has seen little growth if any in their purchasing power and economic vitality. many are struggling with chronic unemployment before the recession. we need to move forward and address that in a way that puts the focus on those principles, those the u.s., those priorities for the middle class, and then i think we can come to terms. this sets a tone for the 2012 budget. right now, i saw some very strong splits out there. but we can heal those splits if we focus on the middle class. i agree with that sentiment. i think the tone is exactly

where we're at. usg executive salaries grow over the last couple of decades -- we have seen executive salaries grow over the last couple of decades. we have the biggest gap since our history in those that are mighty and those that are middle class. that is not sustainable. somebody has to purchase products. somebody has to build products. i think we're kidding ourselves if we can go forward and have a vibrant future without a vibrant middle class. caller: good morning. hello? host: john, you're on the air. please turn down the volume. caller: i don't have a question. i have a couple of comments i would like to make. i think the people and congress

need to realize that they're not republicans, not democrats, not independence. their senators and congressmen. they work for everybody in their district, not just the party. i know that if i had a job and i was working at it and i don't did the job done by the deadline, my boss would probably fire me. they need to realize that, too. host: why didn't democrats pass that last year? guest: it was a difficult measure to get something done. it a 60-vote count was required. it was a struggle. past history is not going to help solve this moment in time. will we need to do is acknowledge that this should be

about budget carving, not policy that is being set three budget process. that distracts and diminishes the opportunities to get this done. try to insert a policy that structures, that the e nicepa and predict that denies epa the rights and responsibility to do their job, to clean the water we drink, is inappropriate. if you don't like that law, create a bill and put it before the committee. but to not work on policy development as we close a budget that is inappropriate. you're mixing situations that are not appropriate. host: we're talking with representative paul tonko of new york. this is andre from new york city. caller: how are you? i am not doing too well.

this is upsetting. we have a $14 trillion debt. this is not a compromise. it is a slap in the face. he vetoes the bill to support the military. we have three extravagant wars. this is crazy. guest: i think you have to look at the big picture. you're taking one single bill that the president indicated he would not support. another $12 billion worth of cuts and also riders that addressed policy change. there was a motion in the house to protect military personnel when it comes to the government shutdown.

it was denied. there is enough russia now to get discouraged by all the activity. let's get the business done and let's do it writiright. you need a timely budget. i would assume your work product is deemed acceptable. what you suggest could've been avoided if the vote before the house was approved. get the job done today. i am hopeful. some are reporting their is a tacit agreement at the table and that the individual leaders have to go to their respective conferences and sell the package. host: do you have a meeting with mrs. pelosi? guest: i believe other is a caucus this morning.

host: food on capitol hill would be sparse. and the restrooms were perhaps not be as fresh. guest: it is not about us. we should not worry about the impact on us. my concern is the impact on middle class america. i'm concerned about the youngster who might get a headstart. i am concerned about the youngsters who'll get a reduction in education aid. i am concerned about public safety, police and firefighter is being taken out of our local communities. i am concerned about roads and bridges. there is an investment that america requires for kirk middle class. those who have are doing even better under these proposals appeared the pockets of oil companies. shipping jobs overseas. these folks are doing well. we just need to bring it back to

middle class america. middle class america said in the last elections it is about the jobs, about the future, being able to help my child a cheaper high-school diplomas or college degree. these other things, the utility costs, the energy costs, let's get down to the real entities that affect bread and butter opportunities for working families across this country. host: our guests represents albany and amsterdam, paul tonko is a member of the house budget committee. one of our viewers that will not accept cuts to epa without cuts to military and nation-building. guest: i think we have to be fair and look at all sections. if you do not think there is opportunity for advancement and

efficiency and fraught with in the pentagon, i think you are not being fair. -- if this is the and fraud -- efficiency and fraud. there have been reviews done at the pentagon that suggest we should explore more deeply. one of contractors reviewing contractors' surety defense department. i think there is a lot room for improvement. the have highlighted a contractor who provided an overbuilt by $20 million a delivery of fuel to the department of defense. that's to be a wake-up call. go and check out all sections. this is the problem right now. america needs to understand. middle class america needs to be cognizant that what they are looking at is one slice of the pie. this is a small wedge of a big multi trillion dollar federal

budget. therein all it is all the imposed damage and pain in that one narrow wedge. it is a drop in the ocean. but when you put it over a smaller slice and you impacted upon the middle class community of america, that is the egregious quality of his budget proposals 2011 . host: how higher taxes on rich strength in the middle class? guest: what you need to do is share the burden in a way that reduces the tax burden on the middle class community. thousandiving on see fi dollars sixth thousand dollars--

they have spent a lifetime building and maintaining and enjoying and then say, i'm not going to give up these keys. i will not sell it. that impacts me as a legislator. if you share that tax liability in a way that gives them more breathing room, gives them more sustainable, gives them a greater opportunity to have a brighter future, delivering hope to their doorstep is what government should do. many are saying government is the problem here. i wanted to not see it as a government being a problem. i want to take the problem in government and fix those. and inefficient government is what we need -- and efficient government is what we need -- an

efficient government is what we need. to denounce that is not starting in earnest and truth from square one. host: we're checking in with members of congress. paul tonko is a member from new york. the president is -- met with reporters last point and said they did not reach a final agreement. we'll hear from officials today and also from house speaker boehner. the president was scheduled to begin to annapolis. he is here in washington. the house and senate are both in session said. albert joins us from tennessee. caller: how come we cannot go to a simple flat tax system and go -- and iran of the thousands of pages so we don't have to have a headache yuan to the irs thinks?

guest: i think a flat tax -- the flat tax is a much greater percentage of your household income. there needs to be fairness in the tax code. there is to be -- will we ever done is reduce the number of the brackets. people paid the same or charge the same rate as a millionaire or billionaire. if there are individuals who are living really, the bullet and paying no taxes at times and a waitress who delivers lunches to the individual pays 28 cents on every dollar chia's earned, there is a gross inequity. we can do it in a way that is progress support let's do it any way that reflects your share of the burden based, income that you are earning. i think there can be a much more

progressive out counter we have seen that gap between the comfortable and struggling grow to the largest dimensions. host: david from north carolina on the republican line. caller: what this government not get involved with? you talk about education. doe does not educate. all the education that north carolina does -- but the budget. and 7% or 90% of the education funding comes from the state -- 98% of the education funding comes from the state. guest: there are places where the government does not involve.

that should be to allow for private-sector investment or industries and small businesses compete for the right to serve your needs. government can set standards. then it should allow them to function. title 1 funds are distributed in accordance to. need to cut that deeply would be painful for those areas that have policed tax base by which to offer the education product for its children. right now more than ever, there is a role for federal assistance where you send the dollars unrestricted to these districts, but help with the declining tax base for extracting -- or is struggling tax base. i represented a onetime as many as 18 school systems one of the.

when the biggest areas comes from special education. that is a requirement. i think we need to do even better because any district whatever that is the most unpredictable portion of their budget and oftentimes the quickest growing. i think there's a role for the feds, and education will always be a local driven product. there have to be standards so all students have equal opportunity to have their skills addressed. host: a question from april. guest: there have been all kinds of proposals to look at how best to balance a budget. i think all issues are on the table. i would suggest that what we need to be cognizant of is that there is a growing number of millionaires and billionaires on

capitol hill. i happen to be far below that category. perhaps probably near the bottom. what we need to be cognizant of is that for the person who will come here and perhaps disrupt a career, there has got to be appropriate remuneration for those individuals and the hasted be also a strengthening of just people of modest means to enter into the house of representatives and the united states senate. celesta reflects the mosaic of america. host: richard, good morning. caller: i am sorry. i'm on skype. i have a question. why is it the government thinks they can just spend money they don't have? the crisis in libya,

afghanistan -- that is money we don't have, mr. representative. guest: they had talked about the libyan situation. the president was working through a contingency fund. a budget is parley paying for things in short-term that short- term benefits that need to be paid is to go. there are situations where you invest in projects that have 30, 40, 50-year life expectancies. you do stressed that over the life of that service. if we are to pay for all roads and bridges in the year they are constructed, it would make no sense. just like a specter cost of a home over a mortgage. government spreads into the future some of the price tags that it faces. if we're looking of the economic consequences, i think we need to revisit the district that got us into this very struggling situation where now we have recover from a recession.

many of folks indicate the bleeding has stopped. our challenge is to grow the economy. the president has inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit from the previous administration. that the minister is -- that administration had inherited a surplus. we spend money on the wars. tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires bill or off budget. we have no way to pay for it so we borrow from china and other nations to make it all worked. that created a situation that has all of us trying to bring it back into balance and have an influence and impact favorably on our middle class. host: on the issue of reform -- this is a tweet.

guest: i think the viewer puts a high priority into place that i share. with the case was heard last year, i found that that will disrupt our political system in a way that is very unfavorable. to allow businesses to step into the political contributions network and to give them sky saying that they deserve to have any opportunity others have invest in them. to open up their personal checkbook and write a million or a billion to their campaign. so now it's created a real cause for concern. because if you try to do the progress i thing, if you stand up to the progressive plate and say look, it's because there

was not technology adjusted to the rates, and you come out and ask for punitive measures and demand for technology, equipping those rigs, you can expect some of these oil companies are going to come and pour boat loads of money into your coughers. that is a weak decision and one that is going to wreak damage on our system, and there's no requirement for disclosure, so you can pour all this money into a candidate's campaign and then not have to acknowledge that you did it. so i agree with the caller. i agree that there has to be that, because it will allow for the gap between the rich and middle class to grow wider and deeper. host: you were probably there with the exchange between your

leader, steny hoyer and the other on the issue of c.r. 15 democrats supporting the republicans. but it is not going anywhere in the senate according to senator harry reid. this is from the house floor just before noon yesterday. 12kw4r there is a rational way for us to proceed. and very frankly, when we were in your shoes, we did so. when we couldn't reach an agreement with president bush. >> house will come to order. >> now tea party on your side, as so often is the case -- >> mrs., mrs., mr. speaker, mr. speaker, reclaiming my time. >> gentleman reclaims his time.

>> i would say let is look at why we are where we are to begin with. >> house will come to order. gentleman has the right to be heard. >> we have little doubt on our side of the aisle why we are where we are today. >> the house will come to order. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> i would say, mr. speaker, we are trying to do the business of the american people. we do not want to shut the government down. host: representative paul tonko some compared to that high school basketball game and another compared it to the prime minister's -- >> we mean, i wouldn't want to

insult high school basketball but i think it's bad that it gets into such a advice ral tone. >> but i think a shutdown would be very devastating. but the leader said let's revisit how we got here. i went through it. to inherit the $1.8 trillion deficit to go to $8 trillion is a tough flice start and then to find all these things were off budget. two wars and much for the billionaires and millionaires and the tax cuts for the wealthy. the way to get out of that is to get out of the unemployment issue. when the leader said weaver going to fight for america and here to speak for america, then the great masses of america are

the middle class and why would you again prioritize oil companies? millionaires, billionaires, corporations taking their jobs overseas? that's where all this money is coming out of. it could have been avoided if you shared the wealth and went after some of these groups. a mindless exercise to dish out handouts. provide handouts, subsidies for oil companies that for the last decade have earned trillions in profits. take those dollars and transfer them into programs that grow jobs. r & d. there's better ways to do this. i don't buy the message, we're fighting for america when the greatest popularity is the middle class. host: of course we carry the prime minister's questions sunday nights on c-span.

we are talking with paul tonko, democrat from new york. caller: good morning. how are you? host: we're fine. go ahead with your question. caller: i have two questions for you, sir. guest: yes, sir. caller: you talk often about the middle class. and you are destroying. you and your party are trying to push e.p.a., which will raise our light bills from 30% to 100% and that is a proven fact. now, after that you have not allowed us to get into our own energy in america for years. and you're still trying to do that, and you're being very successful at it. so at the time when you're talking to a middle class man who worked himself up from nothing, zero, i was a share cropper's son, ok? and now i'm 72 years old.

i have acquired a little money to help me get through my later years, but i'm watching the middle class, which most of my children are in right now. being destroyed by e.p.a. and the energy department, which you're sitting there smirking about, which as far as i'm concerned they ought to can all of them folks and throw them out the door. host: with great respect. i hear your concerns. i think if you're talking about the energy crisis being solved by drilling in america, it just doesn't solve it. guest: we have about 2% of the world reserves and use -- we are not going to drill our way out of this situation. what we can do is take those windfalls that we get, the subsidies we provide the oil

companies and invest them into r & d other than gasoline. but when you talk about my party destroying your fabric of life and sustainable opportunities to enjoy your retirement years at 72, how about ending medicare? how about ending medicare? that's proposal right now from the republican budget. we're fighting against that. i'm proud of my party standing up against that. i think they have the right priority. towards quality of life. so you want to talk about devastation? yes. we can talk about the custody of your grandchildren, if you have any that will be in these school systems with the cuts to education. not growing jobs. decreasing our investments to r & d while china and germany and india and japan are all investing at a global rate on clean energy. i represent the third fastest

growing hub in science in the country. i'm proud of a district that's very industrious. they are working hard and have a goal and a vision. i want to look at that vision. if you visit albany, new york, that is a pioneer spirit. they are the necklace of communities that were dubbed middle -- miltowns. i'm proud of that. and that is what we want. we want a chance to continually innovate and produce product lines. this nation, as a global leader, has the challenge to produce product lines that are not yet on the radar screen. and we can do it if we invest in that job creation. do not say that we are destroying the middle class. i can argue that day in and day out with you. host: patrick's recommendation, defund congress and the president of the united states. we'll go to mary from camp

springs, maryland with representative paul tonko. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm doing good but upset about what's going on. the shutdown would be nice if it makes everyone equal, but it still doesn't affect the rich. i have a couple of solutions. go after taxing the millionaires which we should have been doing and having an aggressive program for solar and wind power that would create a multitude of jobs. put an end to single care because i'm not too worried about saving the insurance system. get rid of the insurance system so we can get good health care but start with taxing the wealthy, because i don't see how you're ever, ever going to fix the deficit without them contributing. guest: i agree tote ily. one of the most outspoken

talking about that. why do we borrow from china and saudi arabia to pay for a millionaire and billionaire tax cut? i think it was wrong and i think we were moving in the wrong direction and you talk about wind and solar and bulking up, days ago the department of energy announced that 57 -- a $57 million grant will be placed in my region to produce, manufacture more effectively with this money, solar panels. so i think there's this tremendous bit of taffy that we can acrew for our energy demand by going through renewables and i stand to invest and benefit from those. i would like to move forward and deal with this analytically and academically, and we'll be there for the flams -- programs

that really produce jobs. host: you're on with representative paul tonko from new york. caller: good morning. i'm originally from your district. i really don't know what you're talking about. as far as it being a hub for anything. because it's depressing there. quite frankly, i have a lot of family and friends there, so i don't know what you're talking about. guest: what area are you from? caller: i'm from coopers town. guest: that's not the area i represent. caller: i know. guest: i'm talking about the renewable global center in schenectady and a nano center producing thousands of jobs and global factory probably the biggest as we speak that will produce 1,400 jobs so please do not betrait area i represent

until you have all the demographicing facts. caller: well, you are already dedicated piles of money to renubles and a lot of those jobs were already gone, so from that perspective, i wish you could explain to me as a middle class taxpayer how could you explain to me how when it's proven over and over that all you're spending doesn't create jobs. guest: let's look at the 80's when the trickle down when we gave tax cuts to the millionaires and billionaires and the trickle down into the 2000 era? how many jobs did that produce? we lost 8.2 million during the bush recession, so please, you have two glaring examples. in the 1930's we built parks

and infrastructure for our roads and bridges and put people to work and i think we came out of a depression in stronger fashion, so we seem to reject history that worked for us and repeat history most recent history that was devastating to america's working families. host: rush limbaugh is the subject of a tweet. caller: she says it's a limbaugh lie not a proven fact. limbaugh lies for the olgarky and corporate air stock are cri. >> i watched this. guest: a bill that has served us for 40 years since president nixon's time when many republicans were involved in creating it. it has not hurt unemployment. it has actually improved unemployment and cleaned up the air so thattistically proven, there are many children who have been saved from asthma and

seniors from emphysema. why would we take the history of clean air and destroy that? this is a dismantling of progress democrats and republicans have made over the years. it's new, extreme, reckless, insensitive behavior. host: tonko's district is a high-tech power house, the guy from coopers town should move there. guest: hey, we welcome any new additions. i'm proud of the growth we have. i think government's role here with the private sector is to nurture ideas. prime the pump. enable people. because right now it's not like building a mouse track in the industrial era. now it's about creating the prototypes, testing it, and that's where government can

help move ideas along. where you invest in r & d is usually where progress takes place. host: mike, our line for government employees and retirees, go ahead. caller: hi. guest: good morning. caller: thanks for taking these calls. i'm going to ask one question and end with what i have to say. >> ok. caller: i'm a combat arms vet. i remember the last one or two times the government shut is down. it was pretty bad for the troops. you know, homes lost, stuff like that. here's my -- i'm thinking -- i'm fairly sure, because i still know a lot of guys in the ranks that when the government shuts down tax rates for billionaires and the combat troops families are looking at

losing their mortgages, because most of them are month-to-month that that's probably bad for morale and detrimental to our economic health. it sure was last time. guest: i think you're spot on. it's immoral for us to fail our troops in this way, and certainly we have got to close with this budget today. a shutdown would be devastating to most of the nation, and it's not the way to run government or work with the department of defense. you can not go one week or two weeks in planning and purchase the needs for the troops, including detergent, fuel, a host of commodities. this is not a way to go about a business or certainly to fight a war. we are making it impossible. so if we could just focus on the issues and not put riders on this to make a political statement. it's unfair and it's again, a very reckless behavior.

there's a role where policy is to be addressed there legislation. if you don't like e.p.a., introduce a measure and say ip want to dirty up the air and water and here's how we can get there quickly. host: the last point is viewers saying hold him accountable. the e.p.a. is advancing its charter beyond the stated goals by going after congress. it will not pass congress. guest: again, there's a fight against science in this country. there are those who just refuse to deal with science. and yes, in any arena of science discussions there can be defectors. but many are saying it's about climate change and global warming. see it as economic development. see it as us being independent as a way to create and manufacture jobs. we could take the nation and produce biofuels to this foss i

will dependency. we're the world's largest users, and we can do better than that. when john f. kennedy inspired a nation and said we're going to enter this nation, he did it with passionate resolve it was more than a person landing on the moon. it unleashed technology in every dimension of opportunity out there. health care, energy generation, communications, you know? education. all sorts of arenas. jobs in factories and everything with technology. today we're challenged to do the same thing on a clean energy idea. we're failing all because this leadership is about millionaires, billionaires, oil companies, deep pockets. special interests, banks. help the big banks do it. stock medicare. why? let the insurance companies grow even stronger and more

profitable. the 72-year-old gentleman saying my party wants to destroy the fabric of life. tell me what it's like when you end med dare and you get cherry picked away from getting insurance or having to pay more than double. tell me how it's insensitive as we fight the proposal to end medicare. host: paul tonko is a member of the house budget committee. congressman, thank you. guest: i've enjoyed my time. host: so if the government shuts down, what will happen? what can you expect? that's hour focus. coming up in a couple moments as "washington journal" continues this friday. the deadline is midnight tonight. if congress fails to reach an agreement, a government shutdown will take place. we're back in a moment.

>> join the viewers who already follow our twitter feeds. from book tv to american history on c-span three and c-span radio. get started at c-span. the c-span networks. they provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. and find our con at any time anytime through the c-span library. and we take c-span on the road with our content vehicle. it's washington your way, the c-span networks now available in more than 100 million homes. created by cable. provided as a public service. >> this weekend on book tv on

c-span 2. the co-authors of why obama care is wrong for america present their concerns on health care legislation. then the j.f.k. administration that never was, robert kennedy's presidency and then the defeat of ronald reagan. also this weekend, live coverage out annapolis book festival. look for the complete schedule at book tv.org, and get our emails directly to you. sign up for our book tv alert. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome tom shoop the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine out with the new survey on how government employees view their agencies and departments. i want to get to that in a moment. but let's walk through the process of 12:01 tomorrow morning.

if the government does face a partial shutdown, what can we expect? >> all non-essential operations of government will cease at that point. that means everything that's not essential to the protection of life and property, it's a little different definition when it's because of a bad weather say. host: so over 8,000 would be directly impacted. in the 1990's those were paid retro active limit will that happen this time? guest: it's very hard to tell. it depends on congress and what they decide. the obama administration says they support the idea of retro active pay for anyone who is furloughed. host: in a survey looking at the morale of agencies and departments, and this indicates

of those surveyed, federal employees viewing their agency with moderate or low morale -- only 3% say it's high. guest: yes. it's reaching unprecedented lows. they already feel their benefits are under fair to at this point, and now there's the potential for furloughs. host: and the other thing that might surprise people, has your agency shared a plan with you to be prepared for a shutdown? 56% said no. guest: yes. and another 24% said no. but they expect to hear it by the end of today which kicks it up to 80%. this is not just employees but managers and executives, the people who were supposed to be notified earlier in the week about what the shutdown plans were. host: talking about

blackberries, they would have to give those up during a shutdown. one asked how do you get agency information? more than half said email via blackberry, and 28% said meetings with a supervisor. guest: yes. that's going to be an interesting situation. because when the shutdown happens and you're a non-essential employee, that blackberry has to be put away and in some cases they will be taken away. host: if you are a federal employee or retiree, we want to hear from you especially. call us at 202-628-0184. you can join us at twitter.com/cspanwj. you can also send us an email journal@c-span.org. what's in your view the likelihood we would see a partial shutdown tomorrow? >> it all depends on what

happens today. there seems to have been some momentum overnight. and president obama indicated last night that they were close to a deal. i don't think either side really wants to shut the government down, because they cannot tell exactly who's going to get the worst for that blame. so i think there's powerful incentives and the fact that they are close on the dollar figure means it's likely they'll get something worked out today. but we'll see. >> are there lessons from the other sitdown in the 90's that can be applied to this year? >> i think there are a lot of lessons. guest: there have been many of them going back to the mid 1970's. a matter of a few days or a week. that one lasted several weeks. and it was very chaotic in the beginning. and the planning was very difficult. so i think one of the lessons is you should be better prepared.

and agencies are supposed to be prepared and have shutdown plans in place. we'll see. >> let me put on the table, the response divided equally 25% saying republican and 25% saying democrat and others ipt. this is how the government is preparing for a government shutdown. carol joins us from dallas, a government employee. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i'm actually hoping that they shut it down just to take the bluff off the table. because we have been threatened consistently with the shutdown. so our agency has given us information on what we should do. the morale -- we're just going to roll with it. but if it means in the long run we take that bluff off the table. we get funding for kids and education and the older people.

for health care. then we will sacrifice. as the gentleman said earlier, i am ready for adult conversation and ready for them to stop playing games with the government. we work hard and they try to compare our salaries to other salaries. i have a master's degree at c.p.a. don't compare me with someone that'sal average or someone that has not gained the level of experience that i have. you can't do that, and it's unfair to us. so we've been on the chopping block for so long, and it's getting frustrating. but it -- if it means we will move forward with the budget, i'm ready for it. >> can you share with us what agency or department you work for in dallas? >> i work for c.m.s. host: thank you. guest: that's certainly what we're hearing from a lot of people. certainly frustration with how the process has gone on and the

feeling that federal employees are being targeted. freezing federal employee pay, one of the very few things the democrats and republicans agreed upon in this whole process. we are hearing more from employees that they are irritated by the property of being out of their jobs and unsure about whether they will be out of their jobs, so there's a lot of that feeling of the sort of bring it on and what we're hearing more is genuine anger about what the ramifications of this might be. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i was just calling for your guest to let us know exactly how we got boo into this situation with the amount of money we spent just since democrats took control and fast 1997 budget which we were off balance. democrats took control with the 1998 budget from there. could we just explain a little

bit about how much we spent in the bush years and eaven year, i know we spent a couple hundred billion extra compared to the money we're spending now. last time we had four years of surplus. and i'm wondering, i know we've overspent in the last couple of years in comparison to the clinton years. but is there any way to have a closing of government and cutting, and the other thing, the last debt was just, you know, using the same things they used in 1995 but what was it cincinnati and we're going to dill everybody? and did anybody die back then? i think it will be a good thing to close down the government. what do you have to say? >> i don't think it's likely much money will be made by closing down the government itself. there will be some employees that are upset.

it is a very different situation, and that's -- to get to your point, that's what caused us to be where we are today in terms of both sides really digging in their position both sides agree this is not the real debate over federal spending. it's the beginning of the debate which does not bode well for the future debates, because in a sense, this is not a difficulty debate. this is the easy part. host: cary, good morning. you're on with tom shoop the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine. >> thank you. caller: thank you for taking my call. with senator john mccain and maria campbell, the glass ceiling attempt was voted down with the bailout and here from massachusetts. and interestingly enough, when

they first said it should be re-enacted, they comp flavent it would shut down the -- the system has bankrupted this country in the tens of trillions of dollars. and we would be able to take that and put it into things that we need to like nasa, noapa. types of programs that would put millions of people back to work in high-tech jobs and put this country back on the global leadership that we need. sort of bailout us. guest: i can't claim to be an expert on that. but clearly there are options on the table involving trillions of dollars of federal spending that are not being addressed right now. what we're talking about right

now is settling on much of a piece of the pie. >> next is a call for bill online in south carolina. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was an employee at the v.a. hospital since 1981. during the 1995-1996 shutdowns. they had two shutdowns. and the federal employees were still paid. furloughed people were still paid. even though much of us, many of us came to work. i work at a v.a. hospital. and you know, you have to have nurses and doctors, and they were there. the v.a. m always works and takes care of their veterans.

and the $400 million was spent evidently on people that were furloughed and went home, and i did see people going out of the gates that were happy like the fourth of july that they had the day off. and they were gone, and they didn't come back. they didn't do their jobs, and we kind of wondered what they were going in the first place. host: thank you. as he was weighing in a comment from gary saying the problem with government is that it has no nonessential employees, so if you don't contribute to the bottom line, you are gone. to both of these points, your response? guest: there was definitely a sense in 1995 and 1996 that people who went away were pretty sure they were going to get paid retro actively when they came back. there's less of a sense of that this time. i think. and as for just the specifics of the v.a., the v.a. will be in operations almost entirely duringing this shutdown. because that's a change from

know-1996. first of all, a lot of v.a. is essential for life and property. everything associated with that. now the v.a. also gives advanced appropriation. s so they actually have their funding in place. so they will be open question of who is essential and who isn't is a difficult question for agencies to address. and there are people who i would say in the short term may not be necessary to be there if the government shut down. but i think it's a little bit of a stretch that if you see people are not distressed, there's a question wove of whether they should be there or should have been there in the first place. caller: i hear y'all talking about shutdown. shutdown. we have the gentlemen out there fighting for their lives. it's not just them. it's everything manned fighting for their lives. the workers and the other guys

saying the nurses and doctors. what about all of these people? and what about the previous medicare and all that kind of stuff? and if it does shouth shut down, how long will it be shut down and who all is it going to hurt? it's saying it's going to hurt the billionaires out there whose got more money than anybody. >> thank you for the call. let me pick up on her point of how long the government could shut down if it does close down tomorrow. >> the likelihood that it will be shorter rather than longer. people refer to the 1995-1996 shutdown, but that was in itself an anomaly being three weeks or so. most shutdowns are not that long, and this one seems less likely that it will be that long. the pain will be felt in a matter of weeks.

that's in the ways of payments not going out the contractors and facilities being closed and visa and passport applications will be affected very quickly. so i think another thing we can't forget is that methods of communication are much quicker and stronger than they were then. the members of congress and the obama administration are going to hear complaints much more quickly than they did in the 1996 shutdown. host: she also asked about military employees and personnel as we heard from defense second -- heard from defense secretaries. >> for ewan formed military personnel, they do get paid in the event of a shutdown. they are essential to the protection of life and property. they are expected to work, and

they will get paid. but the pay will come retro actively. so there will be a hiccup in when they actually get their pay checks. host: jordan expected to see a compromise this morning. why is the house and senate still playing games? guest: i think that it's this sort of friendsied-end games is not all this unusual, and the stakes are very high, and both sides have dug in position and get the maximum of what they are going to get. that incentive advises them toe go right to the brink. host: good morning. the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just going over some figures here. i understand since november that we went in debt $830

billion. and against, well, we have a $14.2 trillion debt. and the democrats and republicans are talking about $33 billion and $39 billion is where their problem is. that's a drop in a bucket compared to 13.4 trillion dollar debt. so really if they didn't decide to agree on between $33 billion and $39 billion. that really doesn't mean anything, does it? guest: it doesn't mean much in the overall scheme of things. you're correct that it is a relatively small amount of money, which indicates a couple things. i think first of all, any debate over federal spending is very contentious at this point.

and certainly on the republican side, they want stow demonstrate that they are here to cut spending and they want to take every opportunity to do that. what it means in the overall picture is that if the debate is this difficult over this splice of the pirkse imagine how difficult a link is available on our website at journal@c-span.org or you can log on at -- some -- guest: i think we're hearing a shutdown, and there's no guarantee at retro active pay either. and for federal employees on the lower end of the scale, and there are many of them, and many of them likely to be affected by the shutdown. there's going to be a real short-term problem for people

living paycheck to paycheck. host: 202-628-0184 phone if you're a federal worker or employee. caller: i've been a public employee working for the department of defense for 23 years. same building, same base. and i believe this potential shutdown is a continuation of the war on public workers, and it's going to possibly save money. to sacrifice active duty pay because of the tea party and their insistens on policy issues rather than them wanting to get to the other issues, which is deplorable, there's talk about retro active pay, but that won't help many living payday to payday.

it's going to trickle down and it will affect more than just federal workers. i'm more concerned that if these congressional leaders can't agree on $33 billion for one week, how will they ever get an annual budget passed? but i don't know that they intend to. i think their intent perhaps is to cripple the administration, stop the recovery, and i remember early on in this president's administration, we heard i want him to fail, and i believe the folks that are silent or joined in on that are with us today interactive, and they have no intent to help get this weeklong emergency situation over. and i don't know how they'll ever agree on anything. they are just putting issues way before the needs of the financial recovery of this country, and i think it's pretty bad.

host: connie, thank you for the call. tom shoop? guest: i think to pick up on what the caller said, i think first of all, the perception of public employees, government workers is very different than what it has been in the past. that changed because in the last shutdown there was a sense of solidarity between government workers thrown out of their appear places. a sort of feeling that among some people, federal employees have privileges regular people don't. so i think there's been a shift in public opinion that may affect this. to the question of what this opposed for the future budget snow,s, i think that's right. even if a shutdown is averted today, and i think there's a fairly strong, and when the bigger easyness of shutting

down the government comes, it will be not as hard to do so. things would have to go on a long time before funding to yustes from the federal government would be affected. host: and in terms of applications you would be sending in through loans or grants? guest: that will be slowed down. the education department, virtually everyone at the education department will be furloughed. so i think all that sort of processing is going to come to at least a temporary hault. host: and that issue, sara saying if the military or governmental agencies are not funded or paid, congress should not be paid. guest: that is certainly a popular opinion among federal employees. that's an idea that several members of congress have actually pushed, and i would not at all be surprised to see that happen. if there's a shutdown, i think it will be difficult for members of congress to say

we're going to accept our own pay for that period. host: good morning. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. it's interesting, and i was going to say something regarding the very last twitter that you got about the congressman snarkts and our president getting paid. they are going to get paid whether the country can afford to finance itself or not, because that's the way the laws are written. and in regards to them not taking their pay, i don't believe that they would do that. i mean, when they wouldn't giver civil workers and military retirees and people on social security, when they wouldn't give them their -- they still took what amounted to a 5% raise which in some cases is well over $500,000. so i think what really has people upset here is not only is this lack of government

finance going to affect each individual in our country. but it also seems to be that it's only affecting the citizens in this country. it is not going to affect our elected leaders. that's the big issue here. it always seems like our government separates itself from the citizens and actually has different laws that apply to them that apply to us. guest: it's certainly possible that it will have is much less, if no impact on elected officials than it does on rank and file federal employees. there's no question about that. and i think that it's very possible that members of congress will say we'll keep our pay. and i think it's certainly true that the president will continue to be paid in the event of a shutdown. members of congress, i believe, if i'm not mistake have frozen

their own pay in the last couple of years -- host: if you're listening on c-span radio, our guest is tom shoop the editor in chief of "government executive" magazine, and we're talking about what to expect if the government shuts down beginning at midnight tonight. we expect to hear from the president later today. he did brief reporters about 9:30 eastern time. he did cancel his trip to indiana. the house and senate remain in segs today. the president scheduled to be in williamsburg, virginia for a weekend with his family, but that appears to be in limbo as well. next is jim joining us from fort ladder detail, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i live in a warehouse. ok? i live in a warehouse. i've had two businesses.

i've contributed so much money to this government, and i'm watching these politicians outright lying to the country. executive magazine? i was paying for this? host: this is a private publication. it's not funded by the government. we should be clear about that. caller: forgive me. i work in the state of new york. i left a job because there was so much waste. and this was 25 years ago ago. too much waste. waste. the post office, we can go on and on. it's a disgrace. the people of america, we the people are tired of it. and i don't mean to tell you i was a die-hard democrat at one time, but i just can't take it anymore the lies being told and the poor this and poor that, i am poor now. i cannot believe what's happened to our country, my country. we are all americans.

it's a disgrace that they can't tell american people the truth. numbers do not lie. people do. i know i'm mad. let me give you a couple examples. they want to give me $5100 to go to school. a grant? we don't have it. i paid for my last education myself. i worked two jobs to do it. i raised a daughter doing it. i don't want to pay for somebody else's child if they are irresponsible, their children -- they should pay for their own children. i don't want to pay for some lady's one nightstand. host: but his sentiment is that shared be my. >> yes. there are a lot of people throughout frustrated with the way government is operated. i think this is an issue with members of congress that in this kind of situation, they are sort of jockeying to see who's going to win and who's

going to lose in this situation. and i think they are -- all elected officials are going to lose if this happens. host: this is from daniel who says, do we have anything in design of our government stop the quarrels like this and get them working together or do we need to add? i think he's talking about the budget. basic live his sentiment is how can we stop the quarrels and get them to get something done? guest: i think at this point it's extremely difficult. i think there's a very serious question about whether congress has the capacity to dealt effectively with these issues. and they were only going to get more difficult. host: anna on the democrats line good morning. caller: good morning. i feel like some of the others.

you know, if they are going to have a shutdown, congress and several of the other high-paid officials, they shouldn't get their paycheck. let them live i like the people that are on social security. and all those ethreast are living. and let them see what it's like to live like we do. host: thank you. guest: i think that's certainly a possibility that they will not get their pay checks, and it will not be good for members of congress or the president if they continue to be paid at a time when other government employees are not. host: st. augustin's florida, what do you do? caller: i work in traffic transportation for almost 20 years, and i was injured on the job in 2007. i was misdiagnosed by workman's comp and we're still fighting for my pay, so i had a shutdown

in 2007. i see that everybody that has time off should watch c-span, and watch the congress in action. and watch the crying and whining and whaling and nashing of teeth of the democrats, because people we sent to washington to cut this budget before there is no money for anybody for any federal employees for any federal program, and the bank is going to have a big red star on it. and we're trying to cut a few harris off an 800-pound gorilla, and i have never seen more people crying, plant ining their fist on the floor like they are 2-year-olds over a couple hairs off an 800-pound gorilla. it's not george bush's fault if you have a flat. host: goes back to your earlier

point about the debate. the debt ceiling debate that will come up in may in 2012. guest: right. it's not a good sign that there's this level of argument over such a small portion of the government. but as your previous guest said, one of your problems here is that it is the portion of the budge it that affects a lot of people and there's a debate over the policy riders that have been attached to this legislation. so those are issues too. there are other issues at play that are causing this sort of contentious debate. oonched i think both sides have an incentive to take this right up to the brink and to show their side that they've done everything they could to defend their position. host: if there is a government shutdown hypothetical that shuts down next week, april 19th is the deadline this year

for taxes, do the citizens have the ability to delay their taxs? guest: you are still required to file your taxes by april 18. it's a bit unclear what's going to happen. the i.r.s. said it will not be processing paper returns, because it doesn't have the staff, but paper returns are only 30%. but what was with the other 70%, they would continue to happen, because those are essentially processed automatically. so, but there has to be a time when it becomes difficult to do that if this goes after tax day. >> it could delay your refund. >> absolutely. host: linda is joining us from laurel, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning.

my latest complaint has to do with why people want to punish quote-unquote the federal workers. i used to be a federal employee. my husband is currently a federal employee. i know we have worked hard in the government. and looking at private sector, i don't think we get any quote special kind of -- significant special incentives that anybody else does. the jobs that we had get paid a lot less than private sector equivalents. and i don't know where this whole avalanche of being against federal employees started. but i am -- that really bothers me. guest: i think that in terms of public opinion, it all goes

back to the economic crisis starting in 2008. when that hit, they caused a tremendous amount of uncertainty. a lot of people were thrown out of work. and some of them end to see government work as more stable and relatively highly compensated. now the numbers on that are all over the map. there's some datea indicating federal employees are underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts and others indicate they are overpaid. so that's something the office of personnel management is trying to work out right now. but i think it's a hot button issue and certainly goes back to the concerns of the country. host: good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, jeff, turn the volume down on your set and go ahead with your question. caller: i just don't understand how the federal government can dish out money to the banks and bail out the banks and mortgage

companies and so on and pass out grants all over the country, and pass out money in, and if they injury people over, this they are just passing cash out. but the men and women over there need to focus on survival in a dangerous situation. 245eu6 don't need to be worrying about their families back at home, if they are going to have a hiccup and in the payments if they are going to be able to make their bills. i see it daily. everybody is so spet there's just no jobs. there's -- everything is in turmoil across the whole country. to just not pay our federal employees and to pay people that are protecting us, national transportation people, just everything, you know? host: we also got a twitter comment saying if there is a shutdown, i will eat thank god, but there are several who will

suffer. my heart goes out to them, the children. guest: this is not going to make anyone look good and there's a bipartisan sentiment throughout that this is no way to run a railroad. host: let's go to kevin in battle creek, michigan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question and a comment. my comment is this. like one of the callers, everyone is beating their hands because government might shut down. it's all a big myth to me, because i've been following this for a while watching c-span and watching the different news networks. can you just talk about how -- america is not broke. if we decide to take back everything that we give to everybody across the world, and we stop providing all these services we provide. talk about how china and all

those other big countries would be affected. >> it certainly is true that america is not broke. largely because we have pretty much unlimited capacity to borrow money. what the caller might be getting at is the amount of foreign aid we sent to other countries and how much of that we could get back. a lot of people are under the impression that's that's a huge part of it. host: the majority of americans are calling for jobs. why is washington talking about cutting the budget now? guest: i think center talking about cutting the budget now because the government is in a very large deficit situation. and there is that balancing act between what's going on in the economy and not jeopardizing the economic recovery, and in making sure spending doesn't get out of control. get out of control. host: da