at the republican presidential field with andy roth. john alterman will talk about the white house decision to use unmanned drones in libya. and a look at the debt commission proposal for social security with a commission member and the stern. host: good morning. it is friday, the 22nd of april, 2011. it is an earth day and for millions of christians around the globe, good friday. we have a number of guests looking at domestic politics. also, as the president works on the deficit commission, we will be finalizing our series with sandy stern on the program. and we will -- with andy st

ern. we begin this morni whhhr views on the state of the economy there is a cbs news poll with the new york times, the front page of the "new york times" on the state of the economy and whether or not we're going in the right or wrong direction. that is what we would ask -- would like to ask you this morning. are we going in the right direction? the phone numbers are on the screen. and i would like to begin on friday morning showing you that have line. it is the lead story in the "new york times."

we are going to dig into some of those numbers, but to show you a different headline, much more optimistic from "usa today" -- two very different sets of numbers that show you the direction for the economy. we are asking you about the debate on capitol hill and the varying prescriptions for the economy. it's are we headed in the right direction? let's begin into this cbs poll. it shows the real difference between the two parties and the view of the direction we should go. let's start with the first thing that they ask.

and i want to show some of her handling of the economy, and the budget. -- of the handling of the economy and the budget. we are going to look at some more numbers in a few minutes because as we get down to solutions -- taxation -- whether the country has a responsibility toward the elderly. but let's listen to some of your calls. we will begin in buffalo, n.y., michael is a republican.

you are on the air. caller: i want to say, the economy, it is getting better, but we are not going in the right direction. if it is obvious that these tax hikes, i mean, we are not -- it is not going to work. and we need to look at europe. the we need to follow china and india and brazil. if they are cutting back on spending and they are cutting back on taxes. i think that is what we need to do. i think we need to reorganize our tax system altogether. and that is how you create a very strong economy, not by taxing the rich. host: thank you, michael. next is in maryland, newman is a democrat there. caller: good morning, c-span. i am calling from maryland.

i just recently lost my home, lost my car. i am a 78-year-old korean war veteran and i am practically homeless now. i want to say that this president is not perfect. he might think he is, but he is probably the worst president that we have had. i do not agree with anything he is doing. and i want to say that as long as we keep down this same road, we will be on a chinese plantation eventually. host: before you hang up, tell us a little bit of your story. how did you lose your car and you're home at age 78? caller: foreclosure on my home and i cannot make my car payments because i lost the work that i was doing. host: and you are still working at 78? caller: yes. a host: what are you doing now? caller: i am just delivering newspapers.

i cannot see like i used to be able to see and i cannot get around like i used to, but i am going on day to day and open for the best. i just pray to god that he will take care of me in my old age. host: good luck to you. albany, new york is next. owl is on the line, an independent. -- al is on the line, and independent. caller: good morning. the sorry to hear about the last gentleman. i am 63 years old and still working, not by choice, but because i have to do it another couple of years. my opinion on the economy is in districting along. i have a couple of suggestions. what i would like to see president obama 2 is either threatened or to open the oil reserves to punish the speculator. if it will be like a housing

bubble. if they will find that every -- they will find everything is legal. i was hoping that president obama was a fighter and he turns are to be the chair shire cat from wall street. the republicans do not have anything but sit down a dry well to counter him. -- spit down a dry well as to counter him. host: all week long we have been talking about the deficit commission. and we will wrap up that series with andy stern, a member of the panel. ed's talk right now with berenstain , a -- ed lorenzen, a senior policy advisor.

he is on the phone. what is next for where the plan goes legislatively? guest: we are encouraged by what is going on in the senate, the so-called gang of six in the senate, which includes the four senators, republicans mike crapo and dick durbin and mark warner and others have been afterg isince immediately the commission finished to build on the language as a proposal to put forward. it has been a very difficult process. there have been many hours of conversations, but they are making it work and they're very close to having a proposal they

can put forward, hopefully, something very soon. once they put something forward, it will become part of the -- a major part of the debate. there was a letter recently signed by four senators saying that they wanted to have a package based on the commission's recommendations. i feel good that the commission's work is going to move forward in the senate. and the budget and the dead resolution and the commission's proposal and the gang of six's proposal will be part of the legislation. host: you are feeling confident that it lays the groundwork for compromise? is that what you are saying? i guest: definitely feel that way. although, the mandate under the commission is 14 out of 15. we get 11 out of 18.

the 11 votes included five democrats, five republicans and one independent. it is a bipartisan proposal. in order to do something of this magnitude you will need by porter -- bipartisan support. it is possible to get bipartisan agreement and hopefully this will be the foundation for the bipartisan compromise in the senate, and then congress as a whole. host: let me ask you about the commission, so we can educate people how it works. now that the commission has delivered its report, is it out of business? guest: yes, its mandate ended on december 1. host: are there any staff left tasked to it? guest: the commission has completely gone away. we have decided to continue the work of the commission

privately. several of us that were on the commission staff have worked to form the moment of truth project, which is now beginning to talk about the work of the commission and continue to explain an advocate for the work of the commission because we felt like there was so much more support for its debt and we wanted to keep building on it. -- for it that we wanted to keep building on it. host: large was the staff and how much money was spent on the effort? guest: it was a very fiscally responsible efforts. the budget was only $500,000. there were 12 staff, but only -- a total of 12 people worked on it at different times. there were two staff paid by the commission, the executive director and one of the staff. there were several of us who

were details from government agencies or nonprofit organizations. there were a kordell of 12. host: and the momentum -- there was a total of 12. host: and the moment of truth? how was that funded? guest: we are getting private funding. host: we will show you the commission members and their thoughts about the impact of the commission as this 45 minutes proceed. thank you for your time guest: thank you. host: let's show you a long time member of the house and his thoughts on the work of the commission. guest: 18 voters, 11 voted to make the vote in the house and the senate. but it was agreed the 14 were

needed to mandate. it did not to reset level of support, but it did generate attention. everyone in this town has some kind of budget proposal to be made. the gang of six have a plan and, of course, we have the right in plan and the democrats' plan last week. -- the ryan plan and the democrats' plan last week. host: this is a story in the washington bureau of tribune papers. it is about the gang of six. here is a bit of what she writes. among the $14 trillion debt the gang of six has been looking to find a course.

let's go back to your calls. our question this morning is paying off of a cbs-new york times poll. whether you think the economy is on the right track. good morning in chicago.

caller: there are 16 health clinics where poor people go. people need their health care and they had a 2 day notice -- this is the arrogance in our country. we cannot get anybody to get out of there and the rich are robbing everything on wall street and we are fighting over crumbs. mcdonald's has announced jobs and we're supposed to stand on our heads. that is not even believable in chicago. most is part time and no benefits. when you look at countries that are successful, they do not use their wealth for wars. they have held for their people and education. -- health for their people and

education. but we are fighting dictatorships. and you can see it in michigan. in wisconsin, i would get out and protest for them. we do not need to be saved from afghanistan. host: margaret, thanks for your ,.ll from chicago rober robert, your on. caller: i just do not think they are making enough effort. at least the debate has the shifted to the deficit. if we had three county commissioners in ohio and say

two years ago the budget has gone down by 16% and you come back with 16% of cuts. and they actually did it. olson was the senior commissioner. and he just brought them altogether. richland county is on an even keel. but our county seat, mansfield, is not. we just have to get together and work on it. there is no excuse not to. ets this --y tweak let me return to the "new york times" poll and show you the academy between republicans and democrats.

let me move to a similar question, and this is health care for the elderly. as you think that is the responsibility of the government or not? is the economy on the right track? that is our question this morning. our next phone caller is from bloomington, indiana, george, a

democrat there. caller: here is the real problem. the 20th century was characterized by 19 depressions, including the great depression. nearly everyone was a prince -- was preceded by a precipitous fall in wager workers. -- wages for workers. we have been in the face of a falling wages while producing more. we cannot be producing more and having less and have a full economy. the chamber of commerce and the old corporate crowd out there has thrown the canard of there for a century. it will need to stop treating workers like a commodity and paying people based on how easily they can be replaced.

we need to pay them based on how productive they are. how much of the last time requires a worker to work to be able to purchase something that they themselves produce. if we start looking at what -- how workers are doing instead of the profit that wall street is doing, we will have a better economy. host: thanks for your call. next from twitter -- next is berkeley springs, west virginia. this is a call from carl, a republican. caller: it goes back to the old hossein, there it are too many people -- a goes back to the old saying, there are too many people writing the wagon and not

enough: -- riding the wagon and not enough pulling it. i see a lot of people on social security disability and the way they do that is a higher good lawyers. -- hire a good lawyer. if a lawyer -- i think the lawyer should lose their license to practice law. i think obama wanted to be a socialist-type government and i hope it never happens. host: let's return to views of the president's that condition. -- debt commission. yesterday, allis rivlin was on

the program. >> the consequences of not addressing this could be dire. we used to think that was way off in the future. it is not any more. we used to think that the consequences of other countries that did not pay attention to debt -- portugal, greece, and ireland are in trouble -- and it is evident that we could be in trouble quite soon if we do not put in place a plan to reduce the rate of growth on debt. we do not have to do it all led once. it does not have to mean drastic cuts in things -- all at once. it does not have to mean drastic cuts in things and we do not have to throw granny under the bus. but you have to have a plan in place and we have to show the world and our creditors that we are serious about getting the debt under control. host: is the economy going in the right direction? our next call is from memphis,

tennessee. larry is a democrat. caller: i do not think is going in the right direction. people do not care about poor people. they cater to the rich and we are fighting these unnecessary wars. if they want the economy to improve, all they have to do is give the money to the people. they will not lose their houses. it will pay their mortgage. they will repay their -- repair their cars. the economy will be on the right track. but they do not want to. all they do is cater to the rich. if they do not care about poor people. obama ain't doing nothing for the poor people. none of them. we need to get rid of all of our

representatives, including the president, because they do not care about none of them. host: let's return to the "new york times." we are using that as the jumping off point this morning. let me show one more statistic in this about the specific tax

proposals. this is the specific or vote -- proposal that is referred to as ending the bush-era tax cuts. households earning more than $250,000 per year should pay more federal tax beginning in 2013. is the economy on the right

track? that is the debate over the state of the economy and producing jobs and the deficit and debt. next call is from florida, john on the republican line. caller: the simple way to answer the question is to look at the price of gold and silver. gold is over $1,500 an ounce and silver is over $1,600 per ounce. that should show that we are not on the right track. host: thank you, john, from florida. next is douglas, an independent. hello, douglas? let me move on to saratoga springs. if you are on the air. -- you are on the air.

caller: the bank in the cap " -- last couple of years have affected wall street and the way they pay their people. it used to be about 64 cents per share. that has not changed. the learning curve for wall street is still very steep. host: the "wall street journal" has a story about wall street.

next is a call from illinois. the suspect a republican -- this is andy, a republican. caller: good morning. we need a flat tax. it is the only way we will avoid slavery because when you, tax one group hired then another, it is taking a where it once wealth, but also labor. when you want -- when you take

one person's labor at a greater rate than you take another person's labor, it is slavery. we just need a flat tax. i think this economy would take off if we had a flat tax. they could just be a national sales tax. make it 12% national sales tax. i do not know why we are not doing that because it would eliminate much of the infrastructure of that we have for the irs. if we could save a lot of money that way. host: thank you. and on twitter -- hong next is a call from tampa. this is wellesley, independent

there. caller: for all 50 years of my living, i have understood one thing. as a kid we used to give him a nickel for a candidate or. the same kingara -- usain candy bar costs a dollar today. the economy is not getting better and will not get any better until the people start coming together and get the people in the offices that are running this government to help us. like the man spoke earlier from virginia. if he sees people living off food stamps and everything else and they are healthy and able to work. i have been trying to get disability for three years and i cannot. i have a colostomy on my side and i cannot get reverse surgery. i cannot even go to the

hospital. host: are you on medicare? caller: i have tried to get on medicare, medicaid, and everything else. i cannot do it. i get different letters from different people saying i can get help and every time i respond they say i'm sorry because my wife works and we are weak -- we are making too much money. she makes $9 per hour. we live in a $550 apartment and we are paying rent and bills and everything else. we have to borrow money to every other friday that she works from and scotch. -- amscot. thank god there are places like that where we can get money. it is a continuous thing. the pressure it builds up on my wife sometimes and i cannot do anything if people catch we do anything i will never get my disability.

it is kind of messed up when you cannot do nothing and you can now get nothing done. i do not understand what is the matter with america anymore. i used to watch my grandfather. he would come home from working 16 hours a day and he never complained. he was a god in man and loved his neighbors and we all got along. harardhere, it is a bad section. it is called suitcase -- around here, is a bad section. it is called suitcase city. you moved here and you figure out what is going on and you move along. if i have lived here for four years of my life. host: let me ask you, you have to borrow money every two weeks? caller: yes, ma'am host: what interest are you paying? caller: 31% interest. host: what does your debt look

like now? caller: i do not even know. i just keep going. noodles until iramen am sick to death of them. host: next call is from jeanna. caller: i would like to respond to people about disability and i have been on disability for 11 years now, but it took me over two years to get on it. if i had a doctor that messed up the nerves in my back. i did not ask for this, but i'm glad it is there. the guy talking about getting hard in his yard and working, i have to do that. nobody is going to do that for me. i can't afford to pay anybody because i am on disability. every bit of money is spent

every single month on my bills. you cannot really talk about everybody who is out there working. i tried to get a job after all of this and people did not want to hire me because i had to -- because of my back and because i had to take narcotics. host: reacting to an earlier caller, seeing people doing yard work when they are on disability -- the president this week suggested another debt commission be started. the washington post writes about it today.

next is a call from lagrange, georgia. good morning to both, -- beau,

a republican. caller: i have a few comments. [unintelligible] #2, i am sick of all of these politicians talking about creating jobs. it's how would you create jobs when you have lost your manufacturing base? my idea would be to throw a tax out there on imports to make american companies that have moved their manufacturing overseas, bring them back to the u.s. put the people back to work. that would create an income tax revenue. it would create a social security revenue. it would created medicare revenue. thank you.

host: thank you for your telephone call. next up is a phone call from chicago, gene is an independent. good morning. caller: you can not just only depend on the economy alone. the old economic system must be figured in together -- the whole economic system must be figured in together. and this country is okay for maybe -- and in this country, it is ok from 85% of the people to be millionaires and -- for, maybe 5% of the people to be millionaires and the majority of the people to be near poverty. obama is not doing his job properly because he is not speaking strongly enough. he is only speaking half of what he says and when he says we need

to consider american interests going overseas. what does he mean? host: we will talk about american interests in the arab states with a guest later on who will be with us. we have about 10 minutes left to get your comments on the state of the economy and whether or not it is moving on the right track. anthony on twitter sees the price of gold and silver as a -- an indicator. the next telephone call is from omaha, republican line. caller: i personally believe that in america -- host: apologies to our viewers for that. we do not need children calling in to the show. next up is jim, a democrat.

caller: hello? host: you are on the air. all right, we're going to move along. next call, please. caller: about five or 10 minutes ago you read from the paper saying that the wall street lobbyists were fighting over the dodd-frank provisions with $583 trillion derivative risk market. why not put a 1% tax on these derivatives? it would be enough to pay for our budget and leave a couple dollars trillion to pay down our national debt. by doing that, you could eliminate all income taxes, all corporate taxes. just tax the derivatives market. host: thanks for the call.

here is something on the direction of the derivatives market. >> i am very glad to have the chair of my as " commission, because quite frankly -- of my fiscal commission, because quite frankly, as they pointed out in their bipartisan effort is important to put everything on the table. we have got to take some tough decisions when it comes to domestic spending. we have got to look at everything including our security spending to achieve the goals that we need. we need to look at our tax goals and find a way to not only simplify and make the tax system fairer, but also use it as a

tool to help us achieve our targets. host: about five minutes left on our question this morning -- is the economy moving in the right direction? hi, sam. caller: i think this president needs to put -- showing backbone and put a ban on all middle eastern imports. use the reserves that we do have and say, listen, we're not going to by any of your oil. the middle eastern oil itself will drop. and in the three to five years that we will ban your oil, we will also be looking for new technology with the battery powered car, and bring back the electric car that they took away in california five or six years ago. if you want oil prices to come down, we need a president with backbone like reagan. if we need to do what is good

for us -- we need to do what is instead of othertep countries. host: here is a tweet. next is a call from missouri. this is mike, independent. caller: good morning and thank you for your programming. i have not heard anyone talk about a corporate budgeting structure. i am not an economist, but i work for a company here in missouri that was a mom-and-pop company that was very large and i watched them go corporate. i believe that kind of budgeting structure is in -- is a means to an end because it creates -- you get no kudos for saving from quarter to quarter.

you do not spend every dime now you got -- and our government is like that, too. if you do not spend all the money that you have, you get penalized because you have not spent all of the money. i was literally told to grab broom and do some mason -- maintenance so they could spend all of their budget. i value my time and would rather be on my farm. it creates waste. i appreciate your program and sorry for the people with the foul mouth out there. host: thank you for your call. "the washington post" has a big story today.

back to your telephone calls. next is a call from orlando. if joe is a democrat there. caller: good morning. i would like to make reference

to a documentary, "inside job." even though i did not see the documentary, i understand that the young man who produced it, when he received his award made the comment that no one has gone to jail as a result of the banking scandal. white-collar crime is rampant in the health-care industry, in banking, etc. if there is no penalty, it will continue. the american people are upset about this even if they do not know why. and it -- when they see ge making billions of dollars and paying no taxes, they are upset. at the problem is that these politicians need investors to get reelected. host: we are asking about whether the economy is on the right track. this tweet came from johnny,.

next is a call from kansas city, missouri. jeff is a republican there. caller: by no fault of my own i am on disability and this administration it has not given any cost-of-living increase to any disabled american. on the gas prices, i have to decide whether to buy a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas to make it to my doctors of wegmans. if they would regulate -- to make it to my doctor's office. if it would regulate these gas prices, the prices would come tumbling back down to where they belong. host: and from twitter -- ha by the way, the president has created a task force on the gas prices. he has brought members from all

of the government agencies that are related to some aspect of the oil and gas -- importation prices, etc. -- to look to see if there is any collusion on the gas prices. next is our call from ordaz -- is a call from chicago. this is vicky. caller: i lost my left -- and i have clout, in my right eye. by ahman -- i lost my left eye and i have glaucoma in my right eye. i am on disability. i walk into the doctor's office and there is no incentive for immigrants to speak english. if i go to the hospital, they

garnish my husband's wages if it is not paid. i have worked since there was 15 years old and it is very upsetting when you try and try and you cannot get anywhere. that is my money and i worked fromy life for the. -- for that. if they looked into that, it would take a big burden off the american people. host: thank you for your call. andy stern will be a guest today. he is now teaching at georgetown. he was one of the members of the fiscal on reform -- the

commission on fiscal reform. we will begin in his views on what social security will be doing -- should be doing. we will be right back. >> here are some of the programs featured on c-span this holiday weekend. three former secretaries of state to talk about american diplomacy, i revisited of the star vs. clinton case with lawyer -- and a revisit of the star vs. clinton case with lawyers who worked on the case. and on sunday, a look at the colleges. then jenna bush hager with memories of the white house during the president -- presidency of her grandfather and father. on monday, political strategists on same-sex marriage in america.

for complete list of programs and times, go online to c- span.org. >> this weekend on "book tv" on c-span2, jennet conan. also this weekend, sarah vowell examines hawaii. >> two-thirds of the american people depended on the network news of those three networks as the primary source of information about the president. all were hostile to richard nixon. >> go inside pivotal moments of

american history on line at the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share with every program from 1987 to today. it is washington your way. now -- >> now available, a complete guide to the 112th congress, first session. included also is information on the white house, supreme court justices and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop. host: our first guest of the morning, we are very pleased to have andy roth with us. tell people out there watching about the club for growth. >> it is -- guest: it is a membership organization.

we have members from all 50 states, from all walks of life. we believe in one thing, and economic liberty, lower taxes, less regulation. host: how involved will you be in the 2012 presidential campaign? guest: typically refocus on the senate and house races. we would like to make an endorsement in the presidential race, but the field we have looked at so far do not quite meet our standards. instead, we are taking an educational role. we are writing papers the look of the candidates on all of the issues and we will put them out for the public to look at and they can decide for themselves. host: wyda using -- why do you think you have focused on the

state systems. guest: the leadership in the early 2000's was more government, more spending. and that typically is not the role that republicans have played. and that reagan supported and that the party i -- identified with. i think they lost their way. and a lot of republicans do not behave the way conservative voters want them to. i think that is manifesting itself in the candidates available. host: grover norquist group has a longstanding anti-tax pledge. are you supportive of that pledge? guest: absolutely. tax increases served no beneficial role. never one, they harm the economy. increasing taxes now does nothing to stimulate the economy and create jobs. number two, it does not create revenue. a lot of times it will in the short run, but over the long run, it does nothing to help

improve the government's finances or the economy. host: one feature of the "new york times" editorial page is this a tax fund. he talks about the so-called gang of six, after republicans, three democrats focused on -- three republicans, three democrats focused on the deficit. it goes further than just a pledge not to raise taxes.

guest: i think there are two issues here. dr. cockburn is very much on target when it comes to ethanol. it is a subject that we need to get rid of. i think his proposal is, however, imperfect. ethanol receives subsidies and mandates and tariffs from the u.s. government. they're very few things out there that see that trisect accurate if we were going to attack -- let's see that trifecta. if we're going to attack and all, we should go for all three. if on the larger gain of six, we on the larger- th gang of six, we are opposed to any taxes that they may approve. host: the "new york times"

frontpage poll about americans and the state of the economy -- of course, i am pulling it up, but not quickly enough. a string -- interestingly, the independents right now seem to be breaking with democrats. i wonder what that means for your candidates in 2012. let me look at the responsibility to provide health care. you want to pick it up from there? guest: i am always concerned with polls and how the questions are asked. i wonder if they thought of the states should be irresponsible as opposed to the federal government.

and of course, no government involvement, like you are seeing right now with obama care. i think you would see broad support if it were not the federal government, but the states. host: on the question of using taxes to lower the budget deficit -- reducing spending was the favorite of all. on the end of the bush era tax cuts, here's the question --

\ guest: again it goes back to the poll question, assuming that raising taxes would answer the question. i think there is harm that would come from raising those taxes. it would not reduce the deficit. some may quibble about whether that is true or not, but the way the question is phrased is in perfect. perhaps, if it was worded differently, you may see a different art come. host: -- a different outcome. host: moving on to the gang of six, republicans and democrats

see note to be so widely -- seem to be so widely different in their ways to approach this. guest: already, we have seen some compromises. we saw a tax cut compromise in december and then the continuing resolution. i think you will see compromises on the free trade agreement where republicans will side with the president. it is going to be a girardo bottle and i do not know where you will see -- a dried out battle and i do not know where you will see a compromise, but when you look at corporate subsidies, there is very little taste for corporate welfare on both sides of the aisle. if they got rid of that, and simultaneously lower tax rates, you could see something come together. host: what are you banking on

the issue in 2012? guest: it's a very dangerous subject when it comes to elections. i think that will be another one. host: if you were looking for the perfect presidential candidate, who is qualified to speak with some knowledge on that point of view? is it more likely a senator, more like a governor? guest: well, at the club of growth, we're very fond of a congressman who recently decided not to enter the race and made other decisions about what he wants to do. that was heartbreaking and i hope he changes his mind, but we think he's very qualified both on policy and on the politics. i think he would gain wide support from both the conservative base and a lot of independence. i think that jim demint in the senate is equally qualified. and i think he would be

fantastic. he's kind of staying above the fray and preferring to talk about other things. but we hope he reconsiders as well. host: we are kind of mixing it up this morning with andy roth, talking generally about the conservative positioning going into 2012, and certainly in the middle of this budget debate right now in what they hope to see emerge from the discussions on capitol hill and the white in the direction of reducing the debt. we also would love to hear your comments on any of the 2012 presidential hopefuls. we can go in that direction as likaswell, if you like. before we go to calls, if you go to the club for growth's websi their powery have ranking members of the house and senate. since c-span viewers are big watchers, i thought it would be interesting to put your top 10 lists on both sides. let me start with the house of representatives. the top 10 are in number one

position -- host: in the senate side, here's the list. host: tell me what got people on to this list.

guest: one thing that's remarkable about both lists is a lot of freshmen on there. i think that manifests itself because of the huge victories were achieved in november. a lot of those candidates that are now congressmen and senators believe very strongly in limited government and lower taxes. and i think that club members are rewarding them by voting them high on the power ranking. i think that jeff blake, in the house, who's running for the senate, has broad support from our members and i think all across the country because of his fight against earmarks, taxes, and spending. and, of course, jim demint in the senate, i think everybody widely believes he's like the godfather of the conservative movement in the senate right now. he's responsible in large parts for helping the freshman. host: a tweet about presidential politics.

guest: i think donald trump, club for growth has been playing a lot of attention to lately, he is a showman and talks very bluntly. i think people appreciate that. he is not a politician who has candid speeches, candid responses to obvious questions. i think there's a lot of appeal to that. ron paul, on the other hand is very frank about where he stands on policies and issues. i think the more people learn about donald trump's record and where he stands on the issues, i think they'll find him very much less attractive. host: this is francis on our democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about if he's read a certain book when i get to the end of my statement. we have a wonderful, magnificent senator that's not going to run again. he's from north dakota. and his name is senator byron dorgan. he fights for the little guy

always. he wrote a book called "take this job and ship it." and in that book he talks about a building six stories high on church street in the caymen islands where u.s. corporations have their headquarters so that they pay no social security tax, no federal tax to our government. general electric and halliburton, these companies get tax dollars from americans who pay taxes. but i would like to know if this gentleman has read this book, because our middle class is collapsing. and the rich and the super rich and the billionaires want to get rid of the 20th century. have you read this book? >> i have not read the book, but i understand the issues very well. i think that a lot of people reflectively turn to protectionism when they see this sort of behavior going on. they want to penalize the

companies here and penalize the companies overseas. the best way to get jobs back into the united states is to reduce taxes and reduce regulations. if you increase taxes -- let's say hypothetically to 100%, companies in the united states will go elsewhere. it's just obvious. they'll be able to exist and maintain their businesses in a much friendlier climate. so the best thing to do is to reduce taxes so you can drive capital, drive jobs, and drive companies in the united states. they don't want to move offshore. they're happy to get jobs in the most productive markets in our country. and if we lower taxes and reduce regulations, i think you'll see that happen. host: is it all about tax and regulation? it not also cost of labor that is moving companies offshore? true. that's but the thing is that the united states is remarkably productive, more than any other country in the world. so we do have to compete against cheap labor. but if we make this climate in the united states accommodating

to businesses through lower taxes and regulation, then we can compete against that. host: and westchester county, new york, republican. you're on. good morning. caller: hello? host: yes, joey. caller: i want to talk about oil speculation on wall street that had destroyed the american consumer. you destroy the american consumer, you destroy the united states, the middle class, and the poor. the politicians have no compassionate all for us. if the wind blows, they raise the price of oil. they raise the price of oil for anything. the oil speculation. there's no shortage of oil. everybody has conserve. and the american public has to get out and stop the oil speculation. you could lower taxes all you want. if we're paying $6 a gallon for gas, it's not going to do anything. it's just ridiculous.

and the american public has to wake up. donald trump has blown the whistle on all the oil speculation, that is most of the banks are buying up all the oil stocks. host: thanks, joey. we'll get a response from our guest. guest: i think it's certainly true that with the increase in the price of oil and the the price of gas, people are starting to get concerned. think there are a number of reasons for that. one of them is just in flation. we've seen a lot of spending by the government. we've seen just the bailouts, the stimulus. then we've seen very easy monetary policy with q.e.-1 and q.e.-2 where the federal reserve is literally printing money. and you're seeing gold prices go up and commodity prices. so oil is naturally going up for obvious reasons like inflation. now, the caller didn't say it but i do have to

know what the solution is. i think that a lot of people believe that raising taxes on oil companies is a solution. that, unfortunately, we do not believe in. that will only increase the costs of developing oil and refining it and making it even more expensive. so i'm sympathetic with the caller, but i don't think that the correct thing to do is more government and more restrictions on oil companies. >> this is a tweet from maverick. please comment on farm subsidies. guest: farm subsidies, yes. we're against them. for one thing, they distort the market. they distort prices. and they prevent freer trade around the globe that will lower food prices and make it more accessible to all people around the globe. we'd be happy to get rid of them. but we want to do it in a way that does not harm the economy. i think that if you combined getting rid of subsidies but also allowing farmers access to

foreign markets to alleviate that switching off those subbedies and also making it easier for them by cutting taxes, i think that's a great idea. i think we should get rid of all of them, including ethanol, which is a lot of the candidates running for president support ethanol when i think they naturally would not. mark, ant, this is independent. caller: yeah. i think -- what about tax structure and from my corporate -- from like a corporate, nonprofit, everything, sales tax. look at everything and see who's paying what. everybody talks about having a flat rate or whatever else. and also that the underlying youe is basically -- when

watch congress and all of these foolish bills are passing and wasting all of this time with our tax dollars. also, on a local level, if you look at a town that's near write live -- where i live, they have five water districts. in one town. each fire district has a chief. and basically the town wastes all this money when they could have one fire district, one water district, and then branches under them. anyway, your comments. guest: well, i can't aggress the local concerns. i'm not familiar with it. but did he speak of taxes. at the club for growth, we believe the current tax code is a mess. >> think that's widely shared by most americans and even most politicians. the question is how do you go

about reforming it? we believe that the corporate tax rate, which is now the highest in the developed world, the united states has that position, that enviable position. it used to be japan, but they were smart enough to cut taxes. i think that, like i said earlier in the show, i think that there is a movement to cut corporate tax rates but also get rid of subsidies. we prefer that the overall package is a net tax cut. but i suspect that politicians like to have revenue-neutral bills so that both sides can be happy. one thing we can do. another thing we can do that's more radical is to go to the flat tax or to a fair tax. we're supportive of both of those because they make it simpler. i think a lot of americans can't stand the fact that they have to spend hours complying with the tax code when they fill out their tax return. both of those reforms would do away with that and make paying taxes simpler. host: president obama, as he

travels the country, is beginning to mention fundamental tax reform in his speeches. do you see any of that for tackling the comprehensive tack reform? guest: i think everyone wants to do it. no doubt about that. including president obama. when the democrats are in charge of the house, ways and means chairman charlie rangle was supportive of corporate tax return. so i think everybody is ready to do it. is there the political will? and because politicians are concerned about re-election, how does that effect their re-election? those are the question that asking themselves. and where does it fit in the schedule. i think that time is running out. think if they want to do it, they need to start very soon. but i think it's an admirable goal that they should try to do. host: asked by twitter "how would the club respond to a growth from high frequency traders on wall street?" guest: that's an interesting question. and probably a little bit too narrow for us to directly

address. the solutions to that problem, i don't know what it would be except more restrictions on traders and how they behave. i would have to look into that more, but we wouldn't favor more regulations or more government involvement in the private sector. host: st. petersburg beach, florida, republican. caller: hello. and happy easter, everyone. host: good morning. caller: i have a different question other than taxes and oil. you're involved with big brother and protecting us from big brother. i live in one county across america where we're seeing street video cameras go up that federal and local governments are putting up at an unprecedented rate. i'm seeing 10, 20, 30 of them going up in a week. it's just unbelievable. i was wondering if you're doing anything to protect us from the government that's doing this to us. it sounds like martial law. thank you.

guest: i'm very sympathetic to that caller's question. fortunately it's not fiscal concerns. but i do believe that there is a more paternal tend yancey on the part of the government lately. there have been smoking bans, government concerns about banning foods that are unhealthy for us, high fructose syrup, all of these sorts of things that the government is trying to protect ourselves from ourselves. while i don't know particularly what he's talking about down in florida, i'm sympathetic and i hope that he raises his concerns with his local congressman and local representatives, local and state government. host: i pulled some articles from the morning newspapers that may lead into the 2012 election theme for you to comment on. one is in the "washington times" this morning. one year later the battle still rages in arizona -- this is on

immigration. immigration groups to step up pressure on obama for reform. the refusal of law by opposition in the courts and president. immigration going into the next campaign. will it be a major battleground? guest: i think it will get pushed off to the side because of spending, jobs, and high unemployment rate. but that is a touchy subject, especially on the border states like arizona. how that plays out, i don't know. i think all of the g.o.p. candidates are taking a similar stance between them. and i doubt that the democrats will address immigration reform in congress. it will be a an issue have to deal with. host: drives for states to a hitize person hood as on roe v. wade. mississippi voters likely to be the first in the nation to add to their state constitution personhood language that declares unborn persons to be persons, effectively outlawing

abortion and setting up a potential supreme showdown. it's seen as a direct attack on roe v. wade and the alabama is considering two personhood bills this month and at least seven other state legislatures ins deuced similar bills last year. a christian minister launched personhood in 2008. wondering about abortion and other social issues in the primary stages of the presidential campaign. guest: well, the iowa caucuses, of course, are the first step in the long primary battle. they are very conservative, so i believe that it will play a large part on the candidates and their various stances. however, as a representative from the club for growth, i respectfully decline to on how these issues play out, simply because we only focus on economic issues. host: springfield, missouri. yolanda, democrat. go ahead, please. morning, mr. roth.

guest: good morning. caller: yes. i have a question. i looked at everything like the gas, the food, and the way the is going. and it's just so high. and also, social security. we need a raise. i'm disabled and everything. and we need that raise bad. and another thing is when we have problems with social security and we contact our state representatives or our senator, they penalize us for that. if we have any back pay coming, they hold it for as long as they can. they penalize us for asking for your help. but on the other hand, i do want to thank you because our senators and state representatives do work for us here. and i do want to say to you, thank you for your good job that you did. guest: well, thank you very much. talking about food prices, there's one issue that gets very little mention in the

presidential elections this year and in past and also in congress. and that's monetary policy. i think that what the federal reserve is doing now with their quantitative easing and the results, which is higher food prices, high oil prices, higher commodities, is that we're coming up to a period that may be highly inflationary. i think if we talked more about monetary policy, maybe even talked about bringing back the gold standard or some sort of reforms that will make the dollar stable so that a dollar a day is worth a dollar tomorrow -- a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow. i think that's a topic we need to start talking about. as for social security, it's a government program. and i think that when you call the local social security agency or your member of congress, you're going always incur red tape and barriers simply because that's the way government behaves. host: a few people have specific

questions for you. "are you in favor of decreasing income tax rates?" guest: let's go backwards. i think we should get rid of subsidies for oil companies. but, again, i don't want to do anything that would harm the economy. if we did get rid of subsidy that would increase the price of oil, and that would affect everybody across the country and across the globe. host: when you say i don't want to, are you speaking for yourself? guest: sorry. speaking on behalf of the club for growth i think that if we are going to get subsidies, which we need to do we should pair it with something that is pro-growth like reducing the corporate tax rate. first question talked about reducing taxes for the top 20%. i think that we need to do that, but also for everybody else. we talked earlier about the fair tax and the flat tax. i think that both of those would provide a lot of -- it would be very pro growth for every

member, whether lower class, middle class, or high class. host: medicare. guest: and medicare. i think what paul ryan is suggesting and what the republican study committee is suggesting is reforming medicare into a voucher system where you get the government out of health insurance and allow senior citizens to be able to purchase private insurance with the company they prefer, with the policy that they prefer, and allow them to negotiate directly with the insurance company rather than going through the government. host: another e-mail. "if the corporate tax rate was produced to 1%, the corporate army of lawyers and accounts would find a way for even a 1% tax." guest: i would push back a bit on his claim that lawyers would fight against the 1%, but i do think that we need to reduce it. simply having to discuss for

corporations is a little misguided same my because jobs inions provide this country i think that we need to lower taxes on big corporations, small corporations, mom and pop stores. we need to do it all across the board simply because they're the job creators, and they have the capital to bring down our unemployment rate. host: massachusetts. this is eddie calling on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. we know about the corporate tax being the highest in the world while canada is lowering theirs. and canada spends about half as much as we do on medicine. therefore i think we need a doctors and nurses bill of rights. but what is corporate welfare? they're knocking g.e. right now for not paying any taxes. that's sad because what that means is they're writing off their factories. you used to see products made by g.e., your appliances, in the kitchen. you don't see them anymore. and what is corporate welfare

with this oil companies? exxon only gets 5% of its product from stateside. they pay foreign countries their taxes. what is corporate welfare? will you explain that, please? guest: well, let me address his first point because it was a very, very good point this idea of capital flight. money can go anywhere in the world at a moment's notice, just digitally so if canada cuts their corporate tax rate low are the united states, you're going to see a lot of growth in canada as people leave the united states to go to canada or some other country that has a lower tax rate so when you call for higher taxes on corporations, be careful of that very true economic fact. talk about corporate welfare, i agree that giving corporations tax breaks do help, allow them to create jobs, and to deliver the products that a lot of people need. but it distorts the tax code and

reyeats all -- creates all sorts of compliance costs and other distortion that we don't need in the market. so the idea is what we've been talking about, simplifying the tax code and reducing the burdens both on corporations and on individuals. host: sascha, a question by twit err on our top 10 -- your top 10 list that we showed. asked why senator rubio did not make the top 10 list for senators considering, she says, club for growth was a major contributor to his campaign. guest: yeah, i wish i knew. our members believe in free markets. and on the power ranking, it is a free market. you can vote up or down on any member of congress. the power ranking will adjust accordingly. don't know why they did or why other members of congress are not higher up. i think it's a useful tool. i know club members like it. host: so it's a dynamic. guest: yes. host: so if someone had a visibility in certain time of

debates, they might tend to go up. guest: that's the hope we have. that if a member of congress does something good or something bad, club members can log into our website and immediately vote them up or down. host: scott, an independent. good morning. are through? caller: hi. how are you doing? host: good morning. almost lost you. go ahead, please. caller: i've been hearing about cutting taxes since ronald reagan went in. and then bush went in. didn't he cut taxes? and where's all the jobs? and the burden is on companies and rich people? all the jobs are gone. much.thank you very the connection between low taxes and jobs. guest: i think with reagan the fact is quite clear that when he cut taxes in 1981 and then again in 1986, there was a huge, robust economy that resulted in a lot of jobs. he talked about bush, i assume

bush the younger. bush the senior raised taxes and, in fact, did not get re-elected largely because of that. when george w. bush cut taxes, there was immediate job growth. but because of the irresponsibility with monetary reform, which we talked about earlier, and also with the housing crisis and with fannie mae and freddie mac, i think that was largely responsible, not the tax cuts. we can argue about these macrolevel discussions, but i think it would take a lot more time to iron out. host: "adjusting the costs of health care is a big issue, mr. roth. why not have single payer or public option at a minimum?" guest: the problem with single payer is there's no competition. i think everybody, conservative, independent, or liberal, believes in competition at some level. whether it's companies competing. nobody likes a monopoly i think that single payer health care is a monopoly. the best thing to do is to get the government -- the federal

government out and perhaps let the 50 states compete. if one state has a better health care system than another state, then you have the luxury of moving to that state. if the federal government, though, has a health care program that you do not like, you don't have very attractive alternatives. host: an official candidate yesterday when the former governor of new mexico, gary johnson, threw his hat officially into the ring. there's his picture there. there's an article in the "washington times." we have one interview with him, i think, in the c-span video library, if you'd like to see a bit of his positions. and he is now in new hampshire. he's 58 years old. climbed mount everest, avid skier and bicyclists and plans to follow his announcement with some spring skiing in new hampshire near mount washington. he will be spending lots more time in new hampshire the months ahead. do you have any comments on his candidacy?

guest: gary johnson i think is extremely underrated. >> think you'll see him go up in the polls as you learn more about him simply because i think he is this year's ron paul. he vetoed, i believe, more bills than any other governor before him combined. he just believes strongly in government and lower taxes. and that's going to be his message, i believe, on the campaign trail. so i would urge conservatives to look at him and to look at his record and compare it against the field. i think they'll be surprised. host: how tough is the climb when you've been out of office for a long time? guest: i think that is difficult. if he was running for re-election in new mexico as a senator or member of congress, i think he'd have an easier chance. i know that mike huckabee was relatively unknown in 2008. but he made a lot of waves and was able to gain a lot of support going into the primary

season. host: are you sensing that governor huckabee will be drawn back into the race? give i don't think -- guest: i don't think so the club for growth played a role in opposing huck huckabee's candiy simply because of his record in arkansas as governor. he supported higher taxes, higher spending, and he opposed free trade agreements. i think -- and this is just on my part i think because of this success with the networks and the money that they're paying him, i think it would be tough for him to pull away. host: maryland, sharon, democrat. caller: thank you, c-span. thank you so much. i'm so happy that you're here. i just have a couple of questions, and i'll try to be brief. i just heard the gentleman speak of having the option or the luxury of moving from on healthtate based care costs. i don't think americans, you know, have the luxury of moving

from state to state to get a better rate with health care companies. i wanted to talk about the proposed cuts. women minus planned parenthood equals insurance companies. where else would these women go for their health needs? seniors minus medicare goes to insurance companies. poor people minus medicare -- i mean medicaid, i'm sorry, same thing. insurance companies. and social security, you know, people minus their social security, you know, end up with corporate america. i don't think insurance companies should be in the for-profit business because for-profit, yeah, you do, you i know, make those decisions. if grand mom is going to be able to get the service and benefits she needs. it's incredible to me. .

host: we're going to take a break. student cam is up next, and then we continue our conversation this morning. our next will be on u.s. foreign policy. >> this year's student cam competition asked students to indicate the roles of federal government. today we talk to prize winner jake lipsom. hi, jake.

>> hi there. >> how much do immigration politics make a difference in your lives in arizona? >> to a large extent. those issues directly affect other state departments, especially education. i've noticed that a lot here. there is also a day-to-day -- there are day-to-day things we notice. there are immigration raids on local restaurants. there are labor issues in our neighborhoods, so overall we see a lot of that. >> what is arizona senate bill 1070? 1070 is a piece of legislation at arizona state level that passed in april. before it passed, illegal immigration status was

considered to be a secondary offense. >> how did you choose interviews? >> some of them were obvious. the author of senate bill 1070. they are prominent figures that are active in the issue. then we wanted to tell the story from the other side of the issue, so we spoke to someone who protested against senate bill 1070, and we spoke to an undocumented immigrant.

then we also wanted to speak to professors and lawyers who may have had a personal but not a professional bias and would therefore be able to provide more of a look back. so it was kind of a balancing act with the political interviews, and then more of an investigation with everyone else. >> what do you want people to take away from seeing your documentary? >> we hope people reach the conclusion we did, which is before we are really able to factually solve this issue we need to look at more than just one side or one portion of anything and listen to each other, and actually listen instead of just sitting there -- to actually hear what the other side has to say and work toward something that will benefit us as a whole. >> jake, thanks a lot for

joining us today. >> thank you. >> and here is a brief portion of jake's documentary, "the border." >> now that you have been out here and seen what it is like, what would your response be to someone who says, you are just making it easy for them? >> not at all. >> we only walked a quarter mile. so the idea that putting water out here is giving them incentive to cross comes from someone who has never been out here and has no concept what that means. >> it is hard to imagine crossing miles and miles of border. >> when we walked up to the border, we were immediately

approached by one border patrol and another one, and before we knew it, another one came running out a good half mile away, and they all joined up and they all inspected what we were doing there. they were being very carbous that we -- cautious that we were not illegal immigrants. >> it doesn't matter what our policy is, we do not want to go out on our property and pick up dead bodies. >> you can see this documentary at studentcam.org and consider the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continues. host: let me introduce you to jon alterman. he is the -- he is a specialist

in middle east studies. we were looking at the break at syria. let's start with syria. guest: so far the early reports are that there are thousands of people in several places in the country. whether it is tens of thousands remains unclear. the news out of syria seems to be that surrounding countries, even some syrians, are worried about what the collapse of the government might mean. would it mean chaos? would it mean an iraq-like instability on their border? certainly there are rumors that the israelis actually would like to keep the government intact because he is at least afraid of the israelis and they know how he will behave. how all this will play out in terms of how syrians react remains deeply unclear, at least

at this hour. host: what seems to be the concerns with the people in syria? guest: they have a number of economic and political concerns. but al-assad's advantage is that he has been able to learn what's happened in all the other places. he can learn from hosni mubarak's mistakes, he can learn from automatic -- muammar gaddafi. he can learn from what happened in bahrain. that gives him a sense that he is not venturing into the unknown, and he's trying to calibrate the people and show strength so people don't say, we can take this down ourselves. when people get the sense they can take down the regime

themselves, that armies tend to defect. host: jon alterman came to this career with a long resume. he has been a professor at harvard university where he attained his ph.d. he's been a scholar at the u.s. institute of peace. he was an advisor to the baker-hamilton commission. he was an assistant secretary of state. and he was a member of the policy planning staff at the state department. his focus now is organizing all the thinking by the various scholars at the center for strategic and international studies. what started your interest in this? guest: i had an internship working at the state department in 1986. i kept doing what i was interested in, and before you know it, you are a middle east expert and no one will hire you to do anything else.

host: what is your big-picture thinking about the amount of change happening now? >> there are two elements going on. one is that in the immediate term, there is going to be much less fundamental change than people think. the status quo powers, the militaries in these governments haven't gone away. so what's going to happen in the next six months will not be fundamental changes. in fact, we may not actually have seen an actual revolution in the middle east yet because my sense is what's going to follow immediately is not going to be incredibly different from what preceded it. over the longer term, if the people who are twittering and doing all the social networking and really having their life expanded and then fail to change the politics, go to school on that experience and go from post-modern politics and can make the transition into modern politics, in five years time or seven years time, you may have a

whole new political class, a whole new set of political actors in the middle east that you have never had before. so in the long run i think we will see more fundamental change. in the short run i think it will be a little like the revolutions in europe in 1848, not so fundamental a change right now. host: so many individual countries to talk about. if you would like to ask about them or more regional questions we welcome them. you can send us tweets or send us an e-mail. we will put all those methods on the screen. and as always you can call us. before we get to calls. we're talking on a week when the flention -- inflention "time" magazine article was the young facebook writer in egypt. a month ago you wrote about television being far more

influential than social media. explain your statement. guest: sure. the man, sayid, in egypt, facebooked and was able to get a few hundred people in the street. a few hundred people in the street talking about politics, and if you talk about economics in a poor neighborhood, you can get a few thousand people on the street, but a few thousand people on the street is something security forces can control. it is not until you start broadcasting and you put a tight frame around it. you start saying this is a revolution. you sank identify it has -- you sanctify it as a revolution, and you can get thousands of people out all over the country. it seems to me the decisive moment is not when you get people into the square in

downtown cairo. which cannot surrounded by security forces. the decisive moment is when the security forces say this is a national movement and it cannot be controlled. we have to go. it is television that went from thousands to millions. you can't do it with social networking. you can create an event. you can get people to pay attention to the event. but it is the relentless ability of television to shoot that message to tens of thousands of people that makes a difference. in libya, one of the reasons why libya exploded was because you had a revolution in tune eeshia -- tunisia. you had a revolution in egypt. and what city is in between? libyans who had little to do but watch television. libyans watch a lot of television. they kept watching these revolutions. they said, what does that mean

about us? social media can capture television, take the most moving images and push them out to audiences on demand. so one of the people interviewed after being arrested was downloaded over and over again. so it was a television interview that was pushed back out over and over again through the social media. you can do that. but in terms of having millions of people to act, i think that still requires television. >> obama -- here's an article, "obama sends drones to libya." we'll take calls on that when we come back. first, ken on the republican line. caller: good morning. i've done some study on this in the middle east. i find an interesting potential issue is that there will be

problems in iran within the next 10 years, and that we will reach an accommodation with iran in order to reestablish the balance of power in the middle east. when we went into iraq, we destroyed the balance of power between iraq and iran. we're also destroying the balance of power between pakistan and india by going into afghanistan, which is a mistake also. your comments, please. thank you. guest: i know a lot of people who spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to untie the difficult relationship between the u.s. and iran. for many of them they would consider your prognosis to be very optimistic, that we can defeat this antagonism between the u.s. and iran. it is very complicated. it is very difficult. i think it is not impossible but

optimistic to be able to say we are going to be able to fix that. certainly we are in a position now where our gulf-arab allies are pleading with us to stay serious about iran, to understand that iran is a durable threat to the region, and it requires us to support them and support allies against iran. our allies in israel are concerned about rein -- iranian attention. our ability to attempt to have a different relationship with iran has not met with a lot of success. whether a different iranian leader might do something different or whether a change in oil prices would change the cal cluss -- calculous of iranian behavior, we haven't seen that yet. when we talk to people in the oil market that prices are going

up, it doesn't seem to me in the near term you will have iran driving a different calculus for a long time. >> i wanted to give you guys a comment more than a question, reas really. when we look at everything going on in the region over there, i was wondering with all this going on, how do you think this will affect the hostilities going on toward israel with the continuing attacks and stuff like that? guest: that's an interesting question. of course, it is always hard to predict the future. let me give you a couple data points. one is, when i talk to people in the arab world, and i generally talk to them in arabic, i sense there is sort of an acceptance of israel's existence.

i remember being in a cab in yemen with some anti-semitic people, and really he said, the only fair solution is to have two states. that's the only way to resolve this. i said, but what about all this you are saying? and he said, no, no, the only way to resolve this is to have two states. there has been an increasing acceptance in the arab world of israel. which isn't to say -- i think we will be more pro-palestinian in the future, but at the same time you see the idea that no sense is obtainable in the sense that israel has to hunker down and not pay attention to arab hostility. we are done with a sense of

enduring tensions between israel and arabs. but you can either look at that as good news or bad news. my sense is that in general, left alone, what we'll have is increasing hostility but not increasing threats to the existence of israel. host: a connecticut mom tweets, "conventional wisdom used to be that tensions in the middle east were driven by israel -palestinian conflict. obviously, that is wrong." guest: there are many conflicts. some have to do with the way that the middle east relates to the rest of the world. i think there is a genuine attachment to the palestinian

cause, partly out of a sense of solidarity, partly because it is a prison through which arabs see injustice in the world and they see palestinians embodying injustice in the world. there is no question in my mind that moving toward resolution of the conflict will help treat that deep sense of injustice. but it is certainly not a light switch. it is not if you solve that problem all the other problems go away. and it is not as if you solve all the other problems, then this one becomes irrelevant. i think they are all relevant. they all deal with a set of related issues. i think the broader issue is that in a general sense of injustify justice -- sense of injustice that arabs encounter in their daily lives, and also as they see the rest of the

world dealing with the arab world. host: we're talking to jon alterman from the center for strategic studies in the middle east. our next call is from bangor, maine. this is the democratic line. caller: i have a question and a comment. first, why are the representatives in congress and the united states want to tell people 3,000 and 4,000 miles away what to do with their resources and their government and how to handle their business over there? my question is, why, if the united states would not allow anyone else to tell them what to do, why should we be over there telling them what to do with their stuff? guest: i'm not sure we're telling people what to do with

their stuff. there are so many issues going on, it is hard to nail it down to one. we are not telling people what to do with their stuff. we are not telling them what to do with their resources. we have been reserved on syria. we have modest in our goals for libya. we haven't spoken about how the libyans should allocate their oil wealth. if you talk to a lot of libyans -- i've spoken to libyans in libya when i visited there -- there is a sense that this country should be wealthy and isn't wealthy because the government is squandering resources. this isn't about that. the intervention is really about trying to protect these populations which the government of libya has indicated in lots of ways that they would massacre if they had an opportunity to do so in punishment for this uprising. this is an effort to protect civilian populations. it is an effort that the united states isn't leading.

countries closer to libya are leading it. that is britain and france. europe is playing a supportive role. certainly the obama administration is much more modest about its ak ability to -- about its ability to affect politics overseas and in bringing the blessings of liberty to populations around the world. host: here's the headline. "obama sends drones to libya." here is defense secretary gates answering a question about whether or not the mission has widened. >> i think this is a very limited additional role on our part, but it does provide additional capabilities to nato.

>> but are the preditors now a-10's? >> the president has been clear that the finer strike goal has been turned over to our allies and our friends. if we can make a moderate contribution to these preditors, we will do that. i don't think any of us see that as the mission changing. host: there are a number of articles this morning in the paper, but one caught my eye. "after gaddafi falls is the u.s. prepared to combat the spread of anarchy?" they also say "if gaddafi falls it is difficult to see what surviving institution can manage governans -- governance in

libya." guest: which goes 0 to -- which goes to what some have said, the devil they know is better than the unknown. host: what about how involved we are in syria? guest: one of the things that struck me when i was in libya and have dealt with libyans over the last several years is the extent to which the gaddafi government has destroyed the humanitarian capital in a sense to keep the population from challenging the government. there is not a huge reservoir of talented cozz policy tans -- cos mopolitains in libya that can take over. but i think what the chief lesson in libya is, that just

turning over the situation is not satisfactory. there is more to getting to satisfactory than simply removing something unsatisfactory. as we look to do that, what are the areas of influence that we have? i think that's what that editoral or op-ed was talking about. that is, how do you think through what are the consequences? what are the tools you have? it is not just "not this," it is affirmative. you must have tools to put it toward something positive. host: how will the government be involved after wards? guest: my sense is, at least in the near term, the country used to be led from the east -- after muammar gaddafi had his coup, he

led the country from the west. i think there is a desire to nurture this group in the east to turn them into a legitimate group. the east has been more cosmopolitan. how that will go is unclear. certainly the transitional council has not demonstrated a huge amount of skill. rebels have not demonstrated a huge amount of skill. one of the problems on the intelligence side, as you are thinking about aiding the rebels, is who are these guys? how do they work together? how do you help them work together? this is something chris stevens, the american diplomat is there trying to work with them. there is a lot of resources toward trying to create a government in the east that is much more likely to be a divided area with a free east and a muammar gaddafi ruled west. hofle this is dan on the

republican line. good morning. caller: my question is, is there any understanding among the political leaders worldwide of the almost one century of the balkanization of the middle east of the u.s. pulling out and setting up all these teifdoms and at the same time producing a whole bunch of brutal dictators to control things. now that the pot is pulling over from a century of refregs pression, -- aftersy century of repression, everyone is running around like a chicken with their head cut off and no one knows who is doing what to whom. is there an answer at this point?

not in the short-term instant gratification mode of the world, but in the long-term process. guest: the italians had libya. the french were in one country and pulled out. there is a diverse history. it seems to me after some of the monarchies fell in the 1960's and you had these military dictators come in, the real question in middle east politics remains a question of, not are people willing to win, but can we move toward a political system where people are willing to lose? it seems to me the core of a democratic system, the core of this resilience that keeps people in the system, that keeps people moving toward the center is not people's willingness to win. everyone is willing to win. are you willing to lose because

you think in the next round you can win? it seems to me of all the things missing in middle eastern politics it is the willingness to lose because you may win in the future. so you stay vested in the system. that's what decades of u.s. relationships with various leaders in the middle east hasn't been able to instill. it seems to me that needs to be the goal. trust that if you don't win this round there will be future rounds you can win, and it is time to put your head down and be creative and work toward a better future. host: next question for jon alterman comes from baltimore. louis, you are on the air. with apologies we will move on to san antonio texas. bob, democrat. caller: my first observation is

that every time someone comes on the show here from the government, they are jewish. the other statement is if this country goes down, it will be for the love of israel. that's all i got to say. guest: i'm not from the government. sorry. host: next caller. caller: as long as we're sending in missile strikes, why don't we pound gaddafi's compound and bury him there? and secondly, what is the extent of the muslim brotherhood throughout all of these stirgs in the middle east -- stirrings in the middle east?

guest: two interesting questions. on the issue of trying to attack muammar gaddafi, i think the fact is, it is often very hard, even if you had the legal ability to assassinate people, which we don't, it is very hard to assassinate paranoid leaders. we have been chasing osama bin laden for more than a decade and we have been unsuccessful in getting him. in terms of the brotherhood, the brotherhood has so far been a step behind the leaders of these movements, which have generally been more secular movements. but because they are among the best organized political actors, they stand to reap the benefit of political change, of political openings. so if we're to look at where the brotherhood is, i think the brotherhood is not creating all these movements, but the

brotherhood if we look two or three or four years down the road may be the primary beneficiary of this movement. if you have more open politics, does that leave the brotherhood to moderate? does it lead these countries toward greater extremism? the fact is, no one knows yet. there are good theories on all sides. host: the house has typically invited the israeli prime minister to speak, and he has accepted the invitation next month. some of the observers suggest there is a tug-of-war going on, on both sides of pennsylvania avenue over israel. guest: there is no question that republican politics is more comfortable with benjamin netanyahu and israeli politics than the white house is.

the american love affair with israel, arguably the democratic love affair with israel, is really with the labor party. there have always been tensions between american presidents and likud prime ministers. so father -- part of this, i think, is to be expected. but with a republican house that sees enemies in lots of places and a white house that is perceived to see potential friends everywhere, there is really sort of a philosophical difference at stake here. i don't know what actually the white house is going to do, what the white house can do. because it seems to me the fundamental problem in the arab-israeli conflict now is not a diplomatic problem, it is a political problem. it is about the politics in the palestinian community and the politics in israel, which neither side see as urgency or

necessity to successfully conclude negotiations right now. i think ultimately the fight about what the strategy should be is a misplaced fight. because the real effort needs to be creating a political possibility, not on designs the -- how everybody sits around a table. it is changing the political context that can allow successful diplomacy to take place. host: the "times," it is time for obama to risk all for a middle east peace deal by scocroft. guest: i don't think it is a crazy idea, but i don't think it

is particularly kindly because there are a number of people who have been arguing that consistently for years on end. i do think the key problem is not, can we imagine what a deal looks like? it is, what do we get from making that deal? the israeli criticism is not that they can't make an agreement. the israeli criticism is, the agreement is not worth it because we won't get peace in the end. the palestinian opinion is that the occupation never will end. that's the problem. the intent is, in each society, holding a tougher line. benjamin netanyahu's chief problem is not the palestinians, it is the fact that he thinks his foreign minister wants to take his job, pushing politics to the right. the chief problem that the palestinians have is the hamas leader in gaza who wants his

job. that pulls your politics away from successful negotiations and toward people grandstanding to talk about how much they are stend defending -- how much they are defending the national interest. host: what kind of pressures does it put on the israeli government to find compromise or not? guest: there are some people in israel that say if we are going to have more democratic government that is will draw a tougher line, we should try to lock in something now. if you are not going to have egypt supporting gaza, as egypt has for many years, now is the time to move something forward. there are others that say, look, the fundamental nature of the middle east world is instability and so israel should hunker down. as the israelis look they can draw comfort from the fact there

is not unrest in the palestinian community. their whole solution is predicated on having friendly governments in egypt and jordan. we have seen a change in jordan. we don't know where egypt is going. the israelis were strategically two or three or four years down the line hoping to have a whole -- they are looking at a whole new different balance of power. that will force them to rethink national strategy. host: if sthr a collapse of al-assad, then things can be very different in syria. guest: israel remains colonel with domestic politics. amidst all of this is a sense, we can't affect that game. at the same time there are a whole set of political scandals going on in israel which continue to draw the attention

of israelis. host: our next caller. caller: thank you for taking my call. the comment i have to make is that if you look back 30 -some-odd years ago when we had a stable government in iran, the shaw's regime, and was a great al eye of america, you notice that there was a good stabble and there was some -- good stability and there was some peace that came about between arabs and israel. however with the change of the government and the khomeini's regime everything has changed. all the social, political -- everything has changed in the middle east. we are hitting all these sidelines and missing the main point. the main point is the regime in iran. that has to go at any cost. i don't know why we invaded iraq

and took out saddam hussein. we could have funded saddam hussein to take out this regime in iran. i think that would have helped us a great deal. i think what is happening in iran is that the hands of the chinese and russians are working. they are trying to suck the oil out so they can stablize themselves. chinese use the oil so they don't have to keep themselves afloat with the rest of the oil-producing countries. the russians have enjoyed the gas lines, gaspipelines. there are two of them going from iran directly to moscow. there is a third one that is going to be running through turkey to europe. host: let me interrupt so i can understand your question and the direction you are heading. guest: first of all, i'm not sure i know how to change the government of iran into another

more stable government. i think your other question, which you highlight, is where does iran fit in geo-politics and how do other powers treat iran? one of the interesting things that has happened in the last five years is that the arab gulf states, as they look at what they perceiveton to be a persistent -- as they look at what they per seeve to be a persistent problem, what that does, it keeps china from be an al eye of iran -- ally of iran. i think this bothers the iranians a lot. the iranians would like a great power protecter of iran that can protect them in the u.n. security council and other places. the real truth is that iran remains something of an outcast.

we are in a situation where china is a strategic ally of iran, but iran is not a strategic ally of china. none of this is totally satisfactory, but it does create an environment where you can begin to contain iran. the key driver of political change in iran are likely to be oil prices. as long as oil prices are going up that allows the government of iran to get away with a lot of the things it's been getting away with for three decades. host: our next caller. caller: i was listening to the radio back in october 2010, and a gentleman by the name of

lindsey williams was on. he was a pastor who had funded ken fromm, an oil producer. before fromm's death he predicted that the entire middle east would become destablized. not from an attack from an outside force but internal destabilization. i wrote the date down. he said in five months it will be destablized. sure enough in march the entire thing blew up. what this tells me is this whole thing has been orchestrated by a cadre of elite. then i went back. 40 years ago kissinger said we'll buy your oil if you buy our treasury bills. but the time has come where we are in the process of double-crossing the arabs.

we have our own oil that's already been drilled for and capped in the rocky mountains, north dakota, and alaska. i would like this gentleman's opinion on what i just said. guest: i've been accused of being an elitist, but your theory means i'm out of the elite, because everyone i know was stunned by this. the people who most follow politics in the middle east itself and in senior levels of the government as well. leaving aside the u.s. invasion of iraq in 2003, the last time you had a change in the leadership of an arab country that led to a change in the form of government, was muammar gaddafi's coup in 1969. this has been a region with increasing levels of stability, where governments have seemed to

learn from each other. you have seen a convergence between the way the monarchies work and the way the public works. that everybody has a not very effective legislature. everybody's son wants to take their dad's job. this is a system that seemed to have figured itself out and created stability. suddenly it all falls apart. i think in unpredictable ways. i think it is still unpredictable how it will go. i'm not sure this will turn into full-fledged revolutions in the near term. i wish i had the clarity of thought to have been able to predict this. 10 years i wrote an article called "egypt is stable, but for how long?" you can read the article and say jon alterman got it right. if i only would have written it a year ago instead of 10 years ago, people would have said i

predicted it. i think this move started from tunisia into egypt and it is still ongoing. i don't see the groundwork for a lot of coordination. in fact i see a huge number of countries by what's going on, including ours. host: any -- if you are watching the news, it is an interesting day to watch the news coming out of syria. jon alterman of the center for strategic and international studies was our guest. thank you for being here this morning. guest: thank you. host: we're going to take a break. our final guest this morning will be andy stern. we have been focusing all week on some of their proposals, and he'll focus on the proposal for

social security. we'll be right back. >> here are some of the programs featured on c-span this holiday weekend. three secretaries of state talk about american diplomacy. three lawyers participated. on easter sunday, president ford's son speaks about handling of ethical issues. then janet bush on her memories of the white house during the president sizz -- presidencies of her grandfather and father. on monday, same-sex marriage in america.

for a preview of these programs going online to cspan.org. >> two-thirds of the american people depended on network news about the president of the united states. all were hostile to richard nixon. >> go inside pivotal moments in american history at the c-span library. every program from 1987 through today. it is washington your way. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory. a complete guide to the 112 congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments. information on the white house, supreme court justices and gover nors.

order online at c-span.org/shop. >> on "in depth, tibor machan. live at noon, may 1, on c-span2's "booktv." >> "washington journal" continues. host: on monday we have a discussion on spending cuts. tuesday, restructuring medicare and medicaid. today we'll focus on the commission's proposals for social security. our guest is andy stern. our viewers will know him from

his long-time position at seiu, and now you are teaching? guest: yes. host: what are you teaching? guest: i'm actually helping other professors. host: we would like to show people what came out of the fiscal commission. before we get into the details, talk about the attitude among commission members. was everyone in agreement about the fundamentals of social security and preserving it? was that in itself a debate? guest: i think we have come a long way from the private zation -- privatization debate. in 2030 -- 2037 things begin to change, and we need to look at that now. this was a discussion of deficit reduction. this was a very healthy discussion. host: looking at what came out of the commission for social

security, the goals were the following. they are projecting 22% cuts in the year 2037. and they discussed reducing poverty among the elderly. what is significant about the year 2037? guest: the interesting thing about social security is it cannot go bankrupt. you cannot borrow from it. when you run out of enough money to pay the guaranteed benefits, you just cut everyone's bits. 2037 is the year when we understand those cuts would occur. if we don't do anything, people who are receiving social security will see benefits reduced 22%, and that's what we're trying to stop. host: this is what came out of the commission, and then we will talk about the politics of the commission and mr. stern's position on it. their proposal was to increase the retirement age over time to 68 in the year 2050 and to 69 in

the year 2075 and to increase the early retirement ages to 63 and 64 during that same time frame. also in social security they proposed a more significant benefit, to enhance benefits for the very old, and for the long-term disabled. they discussed allowing beneficiaries to collect half their benefits at age 62. they discussed creating a hardship exemption for those who cannot work past 62. and they discussed increasing taxable portion of pages up to 90% by 2050. well, if you do the last part, the taxable portion to 90%, how does that change the revenues coming into the stism? guest: there are two sets of changes. the first are called the benefit cuts, and the other third is

paid for by restoring social security to where it was quh it was -- to where it was when it was first created. we began with 90% paid into and now we are down into 84%. this restores it to 90%. host: what are the effects of the benefit cuts? guest: we are going to ask people to wait longer until they can collect social security. we will change the benefit formula. it is called "progressive" but for 50% of the people that make more than $37,000 a year it is a cut in their benefits, and a change in the cost of living, which is a more accurate cost-of-living way to measure it. it actually does cut the cost of living. there are benefit changes and a certain amount of revenue. host: the commissioners to some degree worried about the poor. what are some of the exemptions they made for the lowest end of

the political spectrum? guest: first it said we need to raise the minimum benefit. it is really low. around $13,000 is the place we're trying to get past for people. we're trying to raise the minimum benefit. for people that live longer and get to be 95, we think you should get a slight increase. all of a sudden we know you are getting into your siffings some other things you saved for yr four retirement. final we say -- finally we say, for people that don't live as long, there has to be a hardship benefit. host: this was a set of proposals that came out of the president's fiscal responsibility commission, and in fact, not all the commissioners agreed.

it couldn't get to super majority. it is now a set of ideas that goes to policymakers. this is a starting point for the discussion, in other words. we would like for you to weigh in on some of the ideas of some of these proposals here, and if not, where would you like to see social security go in the future? you, in the end, did not vote for this. guest: that's right. host: why? guest: i thought there was too much focus on the benefit cuts. working until you are 67 or 68 or 69 is not easy for everyone. i appreciate there is a hardship exemption. have you to ask yourself, you are dealing with an aging population that needs to work because social security isn't there. i think the changes hit people at $37,000 a year that really rely on social security. we now have -- half of the people in america only have social security.

90% get two-thirds or so of their income from social security. i wasn't really pleased with that idea. i thought we could lift the cap not just to 90%, but eventually lift it completely as we did with medicare. i think there were other things about how we invested the money and ways we could look at revenue increases, including flexible spending accounts and other wages that aren't taxed now. i think it was a fair way to do it. i appreciate what the commission tried to do, but i think we can do better. host: we asked one of the policy directors, do you think the commission was worth it? guest: i think it was totally worth it. we talk in washington about an engulfed conversation, but talk about the gang of six in

washingtons, three democrats and three republicans leading the fight in the senate. i think it was totally worth it. i think it is a plan worthy of a debate. i think the issue is congress needs to make a decision. there are lots of ideas about social security and everything else. the question is, only 536 people get to vote, and it needs to be clear. host: do you think the momentum is there to craft a compromise? guest: i think the fear is there . if we don't make a compromise -- we saw standard & poors make a debt rating. americans deserve a balanced way forward in terms of our fiscal plan. families do it and it is time for our country to do it as well. host: there is an editoral in "the wall street journal" today.

here is what they write. "if the cap is removed entirely, it will mean a huge increase in marginal tax rates that will affect people's decisions to work, be taxed, and save." also, "it would bring the top marginal tax rate. tax levels like these haven't been seen since the 1970's." does that concern you at all? guest: i'm always concerned about how we will have a competitive economy in america. i think "the wall street journal" looks at the rates themselves. we saw g.e. and many big corporations -- even though our rates are high, we have people getting money back. there are deductions and breaks some of the wealthy people get. we have to be sensitive where we put our tax rates, but i don't

think they are near what they need to be or what people can afford. host: we would like to hear your questions. andy stern was a member of the social security commission. caller: good morning, andy. i saw you during the commission. i thought it was interesting they had someone from a neutral opinion that was on the commission, that was like a business type of person. the commission did a really great job. from my perspective, give you an idea where i'm at, first of all i lost half of my 401-k. .

host: everyone is in line to ask questions. what is your question? caller: i am really concerned about social security. it is another pool of money that i know that they are really after. there are many politicians that would like to get their hands on that money or reduce the debt that they owed social security.

when they first started this whole thing, social security was supposed to be on the side. it seems their attack objective is to get into the finances of social security. caller: the unified budget is a thing of reality. guest: the great thing about the commission is people said social security is a pension plan that needs to be put back in balance. we made a lot of assumptions and no one ever expected people would live this long. that is a good problem in this country. that means we have to make adjustments. it is not about the budget deficit. when we set up social security, it was supposed to be part of the way we got retirement security. you're supposed to have some personal savings and most employees had a pension plan and you were supposed to burn the mortgage, pay off the debt on your mortgage and all of that was supposed to be how you got your retirement.

social security has become more important in people's lives and it is important about that. host: the commission's report is linked to our website. we learned in the beginning part of our program that several of the commission members including the chairs have formed a private group called the moment of truth. will you participate? guest: everybody thought it was a good experience and thinks the problem is so significant that everybody continues to work on that. host: largo, fla., independent next. caller: in the 1980, ronald reagan increase to the rates to 6.2% sought for the employee and employer for a total of 12.4%. they put it in and secured treasury bonds.

now we are having a problem with bonds being cashed in for payment. what does that signal to the international market where we are selling our bonds that we are having a hissy fit paying that off? guest: we are saying that we have a problem and that we have a growing desperate a lot of that was caused by the fiscal crisis but a lot of it was caused by not really having a plan which is what the simpson balls commission was about. it is what the discussion is. i think the world is looking and asking if america has a plan to deal with its fiscal policies. we are being lent money. they want to make sure we can pay them back.

we are seeing an understanding that we have the responsibility to show we have a way to pay back borrowed money. in thehere's an article huffington post from last year. do you still hold the same position? guest: rather than other countries putting their money into their own government bonds or debt, they decide to put their money into other kinds of things. they put them in an index fund for the stock market and other kinds of bonds. they put it in bonds and other countries around the world so they spread the assets. i think that is the way pension plans work and then down and plans to work in other countries. that would increase the return of our investments. it would help not make as many benefit cuts and be able to keep the fund solvent as well. host: people said the calculated difference might be 3%.

some people say that we did -- would be an increase and that would not be a good risk. guest: we all make decisions about risk. in our pension plans, there are intelligent risks and risky risks. we're talking about taking safe investments that have been around for a long time like buying ball stock market, not in individual stocks specifically. there are ways to do that in a balanced and thoughtful way. i think america can do it. host: we are talking about the fiscal deficit commission's proposal on social security and their larger work on the debt and deficit. newark, new jersey, go ahead caller: good morning. my thoughts about the situation is this -- the fiscal debt should be brought down to 24%.

that is for corporations. at the same time, i am on social security. the funds should be channeled into a separate fund like it was when it was created. this should not be touched. and also something else, the administrators of social security are the ones making the money. i know from experience. the administrators get all the money. the workers get all the money. it is filtered down to the people that needed. it. your thoughts about seoul's security changing to put a cap

on administer salary and worker's salary and put the bulk of the money to the people who need it. guest: less than 1% and goes to administrative assistant. it is one of the least costly sectors we have very people do not have exorbitant salaries. they have some of -- they are some of the most competent people i have worked with. they are fair and honest and independent is a proud record for our government that for less than 1% we can administrate a system as complicated as social security. host: the disabled benefits

account for about 19% of total benefits paid where retired workers and independence are about 69% of benefits paid. what is the most interesting thing you learned about social security by doing this intensive look? guest: there has always been the talk of social security going bankrupt. i should have understood that the way it works is that if there is not enough money coming in to pay the benefits, they cut the benefits. we now understand it is not part of the deficit and it will not bankrupt the country. is a problem that needs to be fixed and can be fixed and i think people approached it that way and that was satisfying. host: on the flip side, the can tap it to payp bills. guest: they pay that money back.

when you buy a treasury bond as an individual, the government takes the money and spent but they pay you back. that is all the social security does. social security fails, it means the treasury will fail and the government will fail. host: as far back as 2000, al gore talked about the social security lock box. that would suggest that that would keep at all in a separate budget and not be touched. that the revenues pay for the distribution. would that have made a difference? guest: that is the discussion we were having about whether we should put some of the money in the stock market. it could be kept in a separate fund. it is not the way we decided to go. how are we now going to get'the going?vernment's plan

host: next call is from california, democrat. caller: i am ashamed of you. you are a big sell out. the social security crisis was manufactured by the republican right wing so they could get their hands on the social security trust fund. they want the money in the stock market. you know it and i know it. you know something? this crisis scenario is based on a 2.1% annual growth rate. historically, we have been well above that at about 3% or more for the growth rate. assuming the growth rate stays that high, this crisis will happen. many working people do not live long regarded it as the wealthier people that are living longer. they skew that statistics. why have you sold out?

you sold out of the single payer health care. now you are selling out on social security. you are be trying the same union people that you supposedly represented. guest: i am trying to do the same thing that the union and other people are trying to do which is to make sure that the country and the members' benefits are secure. no matter how you look at it, what the actuaries say with private pension plans, is there is no adjustment. you could call a crisis or an adjustment but the point is, there will be a moment in the future were the amounts of money that is coming in is not enough to pay the benefits. i don't believe in raising the retirement age. i don't believe in many of the benefit cuts that were there. i do believe that we have a problem that needs to be solved and i think that is exactly what the commission tried to do. host: idaho falls, idaho, independent, go ahead. caller: the republicans in the

house of representatives claim that they save $30 billion recently. i look at the national debt ceiling at $14 trillion. they really didn't save any money. how high does the desolate have to go before we are not able to make our obligations and pay people we owe? of that paid into the social security system? how high will get before we can make those obligations? guest: that is the $64,000 question. standard and poor's made some comments about our ability to meet our fiscal responsibility, not for the country to go bankrupt, but that would increase the cost of borrowing money which would increase the amount of our deficit. everything leads to the same point. america needs a plan like

businesses and families need a plan to get their fiscal house in order. it will not happen tomorrow or the next year but there is a way to begin now and put aside past that actually makes sure we don't keep raising the death. we can begin to pay down the debt and that is what the debate is about. simpson-bowles said there is a whole range of areas we have to look at, not just what is happening. the attention has been paid to 12% of the budget. they said we need a much bigger plan and that is what the country needs to do. host: two twitter of viewers. guest: i think we made a

remarkable decision in this country after the depression that we were going to make sure that every american who works at a basic benefit. that created social security. it has endured since the 1930's until today. we are talking about how to keep in balance until 200075. i think the country needs to make sure that people do have a basic benefit. i think the benefit is too low but we do have a basic benefit for all americans who work. host: another twitter message -- guest: the social security plan said children of people who die or widows of people who did not necessarily work are eligible for benefits. that is a decision we made as a country that we will not let

kids whose parents died live in poverty or seek other government assistance and the same thing for widows. it is a plan the design we made. "i thought that was a great decision. host: we're learning more about the proposals from the simpson- bowles commission. the next call is from columbia, maryland, independent line. caller: good morning. our love and blessings to our soldiers. mr. stern, could you please tell me or let me make a suggestion? how about the taxes that we pay

on our social security? instead of having it go into the general fund, why can't we just put that back into such social security? i hate to gripe, but the harder -- when you are a go getter and you do well financially, you get less social security than someone who has made less money than you did. it is the same way with medicare. if you have a good insurance, you are charged more. how long do you pay for other people after you have worked so hard? thank you very much. guest: the social security system was made to be as their

income tax system attempts to become a progressive. people make more pay more. with a 6.2% tax rate there for people who make more are paying more. we try to make a decision that there should be a minimum benefit and we should tier the benefits up. we tried to make sure there's a certain ability in this country for everyone to have a basic benefit. we also believe that people make a lot of money should also not receive the full social security benefits. they should pay taxes on some of that money they receive. host: here is more detail from the commission's report --

does that sound like a great idea? guest: yes, the ideas that you retire with a certain amount of money in savings. you try to do the best you can to deal with your personal money. by the time 20 years has gone by, most people have spent that personal money if not all that down. if you live that long, this attempt to say that we understand. we will give you little increase to make sure that you can get by. host: should be means tested? --st: yes, people don't need

some the "bad bump up and some people need more. caller: good morning. i must apologize to you for the very road where the gentleman from california was calling you a sellout. what he doesn't seem to understand is that in 1932, the united states supreme court ruled that the social security is a form of taxation. it is not a retirement fund. never was a retirement fund for there is no lock box. it is to be paid into the general fund. on fortunately for him, that means that people who have been running the house for over 80 years which would be the democrats or the ones who have been taking this money out and spend again, not the republicans. he needs to get that straight.

how are you going to justify what you are trying to do when the supreme court has already stated that this is a tax? guest: i am not familiar with the supreme court case. when bill clinton was here, we had a surplus and we were adding money to pay down the deficit. i don't think it has been 80 years of everybody's problem. we understand that we do have the right to have taxes in this country to pay for social security. that is a law that has been upheld by the supreme court. we have a plan that allows everybody to have a basic benefit and i think the discussion is that everybody agrees is a great program and many people at different ideas how to fix it of the discussion is we have to fix it before 2037 or everybody will suffer. host: this is from twitter -- guest: after the fiscal crisis,

it is not apathetic investment. the tax there is both a medicare tax and so security tax combined. if you've ever known people who have been disabled , it is a great insurance plan. 90% of americans, it is about 2/3 of their income after retirement. only 50% of people have anything but social security when they retire. people think it is a bad investment should take their additional money that they make and investment and we will see in the long run. i'm glad there is social security. host: gulfport, fla., democrats line, go ahead. caller: i have had some thoughts about the social security situation because it has been discussed extensively on your program. here is an idea that came to mind regarding the rates of the

trust fund over the numerous administrations and congresses. we should take some of those iou's that are in the trust fund now and begin paying them down on some kind of payment plan and we could get the funds from the congressional pension fund, transfer the iou's to their pension fund and if they happen to run a little short when they came up for retirement, so be it. at least they will still have social security they can draw on. historically, the largest recipients of the federal budget over the history of debt , military and social security and medicare now being three of

the top ones, there is not enough done to root out the waste and fraud. i am a little bit upset that every time anyone suggests any reduction in military spending that the scare tactics come out, that the families of the current military forces are going to suffer. i don't think that's right to scare those people. i know we will always take care of our military and their families while they are serving. host: on going to stop you at that point. guest: i won't get into the military budget. i happen to think there is work we can do there. there is waste and fraud and abuse that need to be dealt with. one of the reasons we need to think about whether or not we want to invest some of this money in investments other than

treasury bonds is exec before the idea of getting diversification, not just having the iou between the government and social security. the faith in government is fine. that is something i don't worry about as much as long as we get our fiscal house in order. diversifying the assets would be a help. host: republican in somerville, alabama, go ahead caller: i would like to give a suggestion. if you want to get this country straightened out, stop social security, legalize marijuana. i will challenge anybody right now in the united states of america -- 150 miles across the mexican border in any direction and this is god's truth, as far

as the eye can see, marijuana is growing. their government is growing it but nobody wants to believe it. if you don't believe me, fly across the border 150 miles in any direction and you will see for yourself. that is all i have to say. host: his first point -- his first point was about solid social security? guest: i think is a problem for the people who paid money into the system. this is a pension plan that needs to make some adjustments. it is not a particularly difficult situation in most places. people are solving these problems in the private sector and state governments are solving these problems. we need to get it solved and sometimes our washington political system makes things more complicated than it needs to be. this is something that is just about political will, not about policy. host: west virginia, democrat,

go ahead caller: thank god for cspan. thank you. andy, you have given real good answers. i heard the president's speech the other day in reference to taxes on wealthy people pay more taxes. i think he should lead as far as that goes because of the money he makes. he should write a nice big check out and all these multi billionaires' and millionaires in our country should write a nice big check out and give it to social security to build the fund back up again. it is my party and i am ashamed to say it is the one that started with abortion 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago that killed over 300,000 babies that would be paying over -- and to sell securities if they did not kill these babies.

that is one thing i have against my party. i don't know whether that will change. they need to stop killing babies every day with abortion and everything. that is all i've got to say. guest: i appreciate his opinion. host: next is leonardtown, maryland, independent. caller: the future force also security, as long as progress is in charge is pretty poor. once you get the progressives and out of the democratic party, you will get marxism, communism -- i am in calling in to find out what your qualifications are other than the fact that you are admitted communist. he is an admitted communist. host: let me stop you for a second. caller: look all leaks. host: you have seen mr. stern

admit he is a communist? caller: he is a socialist- communist -- host: we invite people to set people at the table but that is not fair. sorry, we will move on. you can find everything on the internet. have you ever admitted to being a communist? guest: no, i have not. host: republican, next. caller: my question has to do with inflation and social security. if you are living on social security, how you survive with inflation? guest: i think that is why we tried to create a cost-of-living provision in social security. it was not there when it started but people understood that prices go up. that prices go up.