georgetown university professor on the effect of the recession on employment and worker pay "washington journal,." we will talk ♪ host: good morning. the washington post reports that the federal government could borrow money if congress does not raise the debt limit. the ambassador to iraq is reported to become the next u.s. ambassador to afghanistan. in other sections of the paper today, for the first time ever, federal reserve ben bernanke will hold a press conference

following their meeting today. you can see that to 3:00 p.m. later today. it is an effort to involve process behind federal reserve decisions. others have described as a new openness to maine by the federal reserve. -- a new openness campaign by the federal reserve. we would get your thoughts on this first-ever press conference. here are the telephone numbers. you can send this e-mail, journal@c-span.org. you can also send us at tweaked on twitter. the first-ever federal reserve press conference, we will take your phone calls on that in just a new -- a few moments.

this plays out in in new york post. he says that at 2:15 p.m. bernanke is expected to lift the federal kimono a smidgen to give americans a peak -- several other takes in the papers this morning. here's the main editorial from the "washington post." "mr. bernanke is speech clause " is how they characterize it.

it is appropriate that his plan to leave at a meeting and take questions from the media at the first press conference for a sitting. chaired. it is is chance to answer the fed's critics and reassure markets that the residual confidence in the dollar is not misplaced. the federal reserve holds a press conference today, its first-ever. and that -- you can see that

live on c-span at 2:15 p.m. this afternoon. if you want to talk about that conference, what you would like to hear from the federal reserve chairman, questions about the reserve's practices as far as monetary policy, here are the telephone numbers. those of the numbers that you can call. e-mail is easy. and twitter as well. this over the walls from the associated press, the cia director leon panetta is expected to take over the pentagon, and general petreaus is to be nominated to head the cia. this just came over the wires. we will constantly update you as

we get that. the federal reserve conference today on our republican line. you are up first, from california. let me ask you, cliff, what you make of that first-ever? >> it is really weird. host: why you say it is weird? caller: it is so political. you know the answer to that. the fed is not supposed to be so crassly political. host: keep going. caller: the fed has pumped $2.7 trillion and that has obligated all of this trust in mortgage- backed garbage and treasury bills, buying up itself, on diversified, that is the kicker. what is investment 101?

this is a day ganic size of trust. and it isn't versified. very, very foolish. even children knows these things. bernanke has said that his purpose is to generate inflation. look around. gas prices, and food prices, and clothing, and all consumables. it is an insidious tax on people anything left and none of us had anything left in this country. host: i might know this answer, but can say mr. bernanke say anything convincing to you today? caller: he just needs to get the -- no, he needs to get that $2.7 trillion the back. host: next is our independent line, edie, good morning. caller: anything the man says, i will not believe.

furthermore, what he has done is pump so much the get money into the system, i think is going to be out there to try to cover up his hind foot fall that is about to come to us. i think we are in some much trouble, and what every has to say today, it just like when he said he would never monetize the debt. what you think qe1 and qe2 was about? i would not be surprised if he does not suggest qe3 today. host: regardless of anything he says this morning, how do you take it? caller: how would i take it? i do not know -- i do not even know what is going on in this country. we are in such bad shape.

anything he can say would not make me feel better. i feel so bad about what has happened. another thing is that there are more people aware of the federal reserve not being federal, it being just a big international banking system that has just ruined our country. host: off of twitter this morning. to get a sense of this conference today, it's his story and practical purposes, and joining us is a reporter from bloomberg news. he also reports on the economy. what is the purpose? what is the message that mr. bernanke has to deliver today? host: this is historic for the fed, obviously. the fed has faced a lot of

doubts and increasing criticisms over the last three years since the financial crisis started today at the bailout bear stearns, aig, and one program over $2 trillion, adding more to qe2 last november. there is a portion of the population that does not understand it, and what did see more in front of the public. so there are several purposes to it. one is to explain immediately what the fed has decided today when they finish their policy meeting, their own meeting in washington, not just a press conference for no reason at all. he will explain the decision they made, their economic forecasts for the coming years and that he will have a chance to answer more questions about the economic outlook, and the

decisions, and counter may be an address some of the criticism in death that he has been hearing. host: i was going to bring that up. all our callers expressing skepticism about what mr. bernanke has to say. what do you and and other reporters want to learn from him in specifics? guest: it is our job to ask in questions for useful information for the public, for the markets, and other people. and mr. bernanke has had to face a lot of these questions about the role of the fed from congress. but he has never had to face questions on the record from reporters who followed closely and know that that very well. and know the kind of questions that he might be able to answer specifically about the purchase and asset purchases and what might happen next, that are not specifically addressed in the

statement released yesterday, or have not been addressed in detail at the hearings. that could give the public a better idea of what the fed will do next and how they will affect people's pocketbooks. host: one of the colonists this morning, one of the topics -- columnists this morning, he said that why is he exempted widespread unemployment as if he has the power to reduce it? can you expand on that? guest: i do not know if mr. bernanke has accepted widespread unemployment. he has made the case that he is trying to fight unemployment and he has got much criticism from people on the other side of this argument, that maybe he is not worried enough about inflation and he is doing too much to bring down unemployment. there is a vocal portion of

congress they want to change the mandate which currently says that they must achieve maximum employment and stable prices. they want to change that it just be stable prices and not maximum employment. there is concern that no matter what the fed does, they are at the limit of their powers in trying to bring down unemployment. they just do not have the capacity to create jobs in the economy. they can buy assets and put money in debates, but it is not set up to be a stimulus program by the federal government's stimulus that can build roads or provide tax credits that are in the realm of fiscal policy. host: another thing with the story in the paper today, the condition of the dollar as it stands now. for those that understand it more or less than you do, can you explain why the strength of the dollar is important to mr.

bernanke today? the pet usually defers questions about the dollar to the u.s. treasury. if he supports the dollar fall or not, he would defer that to secretary geithner. on the other hand, the fed does look at the dollars and economic indicator. there are two sides to it, a weaker dollar actually improving the prospects of exporters and on the other hand it reduces the purchasing power of u.s. consumers. it is something that they weigh in making their decisions. how does that affect that policy in the long term is the question. they had not said that the dollar has been a factor in any of their decisions in recent

years. host: as far as his predecessor, alan greenspan, he never held one of these types of conferences. and one of the connections was the impact on the market. does mr. bernanke face that same concern today? is there anything that could affect the condition of the market already? guest: of course, and that is a major concern. the word deciding that what mr. bernanke said could cause some volatility and gyrations. that may only be at every generation in the market. yration inrary gener the market. the but they did not want that to happen in the first place. chairman bernanke has had a lot of practice over his five years in office, in judging what the effects of his comments would be, and knowing what to say and

what not to say. so not to cause on wanted turbulence. he learned his lesson early on in his tenure with a gaffe that he had. host: how is he prepared for something like this? any indication about how he is doing that? guest: i would not be surprised if he were being prepared by his staff with whatever questions that ought reporters would ask and maybe a mock press conference, things like that. host: he joins us from bloomberg news, reporting on the federal reserve and the economy. his writings can be seen on the bloomberg news website. can you tell us, anything that you won the bring up, something that we have not talked about for something that would be interesting for the audience to know about? guest: there is an internal

political dimension to bernanke doing a press conference. there are a number of members in the minority -- there are 17 policymakers at the fed, not just bernanke making the decision. it is him and 16 other people. they all give lots of speeches and interviews in talks. and the minority has a very strong view that go against the policies of what he is doing right now. this is a way for him to give a clearer voice to his views and the majority's views and may be clear up any confusion that people might have about the direction of the fed. host: scott with bloomberg news. we appreciate it. again, you can see that press conference at 2:15 p.m. this afternoon on c-span. for more informational that and

other things, you're invited to go what -- go to our c-span website, c-span.org, where you can find information on the federal reserve and you can also access our video library to see what other information we have. you can see a website in the upper right-hand corner. if you type in "ben bernanke" you can see what we have over his tenure. the first-ever federal reserve news conference with ben bernanke, our democratic line, clearwater, florida. caller: good morning, pedro. bernanke, this is the first-ever federal reserve news conference? host: yes. caller: in the past, they have not had the news conferences because, what, they were concerned about the volatility?

host: that seems to be it, yes. caller: it seems to me that if he is quick to do this for the first time, it is it possible that he wants to shake things up? he is trying to move things in a certain direction, and if you do not do these conferences because you do not want to shake things up, and all the sudden you do a first effort, it would seem to me that he probably wants to shake things up and get volatility or moving in a certain direction. does that make sense? host: what would be the benefit, do you think? caller: if people are unhappy with the way things are going and he feels he -- he cannot actually get things from his chair exactly that he wants to do, but he can maybe stir things up. maybe he can push things in a certain direction. but i thought maybe possibly,

you are top notch on the programs here, and i enjoy watching you, but they could add to the program would c-span. i feel like a lot of time people call in on these subjects and they talk in very general terms. they're not sure exactly what they're talking about, to be honest. they do not have all the facts and they tried to talk about a football game without actually watching the game. but you could do something where you put the numbers, show us where the money is going, and the bottom line, it always comes up to where the money is going. what is the federal government doing with the money? who are the investing in? when they were talking about the budget and deficit, break it down for us before you start the conversation. where are we spending our money, if you could follow with more force and put it on the screen so we have more of a target as

what you're talking about, that would help a great deal. host: i appreciate the comment. here are the numbers as far as the phone numbers are concerned. you can dial in and as you can imagine, thoughts of today's news conference in to the political realm as well, especially those who make frequent comments including sarah palin, on fox news "on the record" program, and one of the things that she discussed is what the reporter discuss, the qe program. >> if he is not willing to engage in some of these tough issues that have to be addressed, then it is all the more reason to government to step aside. get out of the private sector's way, do not monetize date, do not engage in more quantitative easings, more bailouts, more stimulus, and deficit spending. get out of the way and let the private sector start growing and

thriving and let the private sector get the economy right on the right track. we cannot afford to wait on the white house to fix the problem for us. host: salmon twitter adds this. as far as the press conference is concerned. athens, ga., to our necks. jim, the independent line. thanks for holding on. caller: i like to make a few comments. first of all, this press conference is a sign of just how far the freedom movement,. anyone who knows about the federal reserve knows that day against war against the dead in his career is ron paul. he shines a great amount of light on the fed over the past years. going back to your caller just before me, most people do not know that the federal reserve is a private bank, just like bank of america or j.p. morgan. they have shareholders.

they are so secret, we are not allowed to know who those people are. for the first time in history, congressman paul actually got a small audit. we were able to see where some of the bailout money went. come to find out, aig was up funnel to send money oversees the bailout private banks, but of course bernanke could not go to the public and say, we need to bail out of europe because we are hurting here. that is a big move for the freedom movement. another comment, your reporter said that bernanke cannot comment on the dollar. i find it funny that he defers that the treasury, because on the dollar, it says federal reserve notes. they print the money. our treasury does not. a private bank controls the money supply. host: we will have to leave it there. only if to take other calls and he did bring up congressman

paul who made an announcement yesterday regarding his exploratory committee during that series of comments he made on that. he took a question on the federal reserve. here is what he had to say. >> there will be a major change in the way our farm policy is being held -- monitored in this country. there will be a first press conference by the federal reserve board chairman. this is significant because that is a reflection of the grass roots movement that push the congress into finding out more about what the fed is doing and what they did do in the bailout. we are finding astounding things. host: this from the "washington post" this morning. it deals with the debt limit. the treasury to bettman -- department working on options if the congress votes not to raise the debt limit.

behind the scenes, tim geithner had begun juggling the books to drain the special account at the federal reserve. with the legal limit in just a few weeks, he has a range of tools -- cleveland, ga., a republican line. caller: all the colors lambasting the fed is that they were the entire problem. back in the 1990's, clinton and congress did a federal banking act in 1998. it was the american people who are gobbling up real estate blindly, driving up prices in greeting the bobble. dt was congress that force

banks to listen up their lending standards. clinton gave china freed trading status. to act like that that is created the situation, when you looked at all these other things that they have no control over, and did their best to manage the interest rates in the money that went between banks in light of the deficits we continually melted, and all the of the things that the politician since bowed in the american voters be demanded that they give these things. host: good morning. you are on. derek, are you there? we move on to virginia, the republican line, thomas. go ahead and turn down your tv. caller: hello, my statement is this. the federal reserve, the irs,

they are proof positive that we did not when the revolutionary war. we pay our taxes to the federal reserve to pay off the deficit of the government borrowing money. but there is no interest on the street that is credible. they print the money, loaded to a set a high rate of interest, which means they are wrapped controlling be in come to the united people. and then they have a higher prices of the goods and services that we use. the people cannot pay off the debt, so they cannot pay off the debt. host: what you think about this being the first-ever time that a sitting chairman holds a press conference? >> this is a precursor for hyperinflation and will cause panic in the streets. it will take away our privacy. host: st. petersburg, florida, go ahead. you are on. caller: we have from coast to coast rampant inflation and

energy, gasoline, and food prices -- groceries. i do not think anyone will deny that. the republicans and democrats, anyone will admit that. this is caused by the federal reserve buying these treasury bonds, easy money. everybody knows this. the president knows it, bernanke knows it. why can you get someone on there who will admit it? host: will you be listening to mr. bernanke at 2:15 p.m.? >> i will not be available. host: you can go to the website, and you can find it later. a couple of things this morning. out of afghanistan, as we take a look at some of the other things, the wall street journal, the front page, it says that the president, hamid karzai has been cold -- told to dump the u.s..

the pitch was made in april 16 meeting in kabul by the pakistan prime minister. out of the associated press, out of afghanistan, the defense ministry says that a local army officer opened fire on foreign troops -- and with all that, and and and we are holding today on

afghanistan. you can see it live at noon. is with afghan operations out of the carnegie endowment for international peace. the guests will be major general richard mills, the commander of regional command-southwest at the carnegie endowment. they will talk about the state of civil and combat operations, the security situation, and the challenges ahead. that is live at noon on c-span. we're talking about the federal reserve holding its first-ever news conference today with ben bernanke. to 3:00 p.m. live coming to can see on c-span. republican line, donna, good morning. go ahead. caller: i like to speak about the interest rate in the federal reserve. you look at japan, japan has economic growth for the past 100 years, it is an astonishing. you think why, and when you think about the central bank of

japan, they are only at the cero 0.5% interest rate. as long as they continue doing that, the united states will stay behind as the second economic growth in the entire world. for example, if someone wants to lend -- borrow and major institutions want to borrow those loans or maybe major corporations want to get loans, they go to japan. their lending at 0.5% interest rate. imagine an economy like japan with no inflation whatsoever, and on limited economic growth, and 0.5% interest rates. it's ridiculous how the united states has caught up with that. for example, the united states basically is a non-producer, it

is based on other economies, and other countries. and other countries are basing it on the united states. it is the highest economy in revenue. host: we hear from byron. caller: a like to point out that federal monetary policy is so intricately complex that it is difficult to break it down into easily reduced snippets. the last caller wanted to speak about japan. firstly, japan, the only reason it is still within the global economic forum is because we rebuilt it after the second world war. and secondly, it has suffered stagnation for the last 15 years. to use that as an example for american economic policy is ridiculous at best. secondly, if we truly want to understand our policy in this nation, if we want to understand a firm grip on what we're doing and why, we need to invest

ourselves in the literature and study and figure out what should we do that is fair, equitable, and the best for our world as a whole, because we are into related, and there is no going back now. there is no way we can turn back the clock. like tonight, we have to deal with the reality at hand, not the reality we wish it was. host: since you seem to follow it closely, what you want to hear from mr. bernanke today about policy decisions at the federal reserve? caller: i would like to hear it that quantitative easing will in, that the -- quantitative easing will end, , that the united states will let the dollar depreciate, that the analysis is a strong economic power house and there is hope for rebounding as long as we get our trade policy in line with the man and with our home

front. you cannot have an equitable trade situation in a productive economy out of line. host: what you make of the fact that he is holding the event? caller: is very important. it is past due time that the federal reserve open its books and its policies and its members to scrutiny, that it doubled its public/private partnership, that it has manipulated the worldwide economy for a considerable amount of time. and it has been working in tension with the rest of the world to manipulate the economy. host: bernanke will be taking questions from reporters at 2:15 p.m. in the afternoon, that will be on our main channel, c-span. jacksonville, n.c., are lean on the republican line. caller: i agree with the

gentleman that just hung up. can you hear me? i agree with that gentleman that just hung up. and furthermore, i like to hear mr. bernanke tell the public what the collateral is that the banks hold that makes them so powerful, because i read all last year that every time a child is born, there's also security numbers are put into the federal reserve to be used as collateral to say this is how much earning power of the united states has for the future. they are permitting slavery of the people. and i would like to hear him tell us how that works and who is behind that. thank you. host: spring lake heights, new jersey, you're next. caller: it is about time and it

is like a catharsis. people need to pay attention. there is a great book, it is called -- written by allan hobson brown. you could read his piece on jekyll island. but here is the. they entered the federal reserve con's the united states government into allowing itself to take over the printing of our money. every time the government needs money, if it goes to the federal reserve, a group of private bankers, a group of international private bankers, and every time the federal government needs money, it goes to the federal reserve. people comment on the idea that the federal reserve, because of its name, is part of the federal government. that is not true. it is a group of guys that print the money, the government than barrault's that money, -- then

borrows that money, and then they give it to the american people with interest. they are collecting the interest on it. moreover, when they print the money, they do it through fiat, they sign all accounting book. host: what is the one thing that you're paying attention for as mr. bernanke makes his comments today? caller: he is said to have bailed out the japanese economy. i think was the 1980's. i am a new student to this myself. but in the meantime, a lot like him to fess up. he had a nickname called helicopter been. when he got into the habit of bailing out these large institutions, specifically in japan, so what is happening now, people do not realize it. the markets are being manipulated on such a scale. let us take a look at the

housing market. let's take a look the derivatives. the derivatives market has bankrupted the banks. they are insolvent at this point. because they are insolvent, what they are doing is borrowing from peter to pay paul. host: we will leave it there. the "washington times", you may have seen this exchange play out. the story, obama sites boehner on oil tax breaks. seizing on comments from john boehner a day earlier, the president urged congress to -- a letter from the white house, to read you a little bit. the president writing to speaker boehner and nancy pelosi, harry reid, and mitch mcconnell. there are steps that we can take

to ensure the american people do not fall victim to skyrocketing gas prices over the long term. one of those steps is to and limited the on more to tax breaks to the oil and gas industry and invest that revenue in to clean energy to reduce our deficit -- are dependence on foreign oil. the industry is expected to report outsized profits. nancy pelosi said that tweet about her own letter to speaker boehner. there is a copy. let me read you what she has to say. as you know, we've had several votes on the subject in the house. i've been disappointed that those proposals have not been reported by republican leadership. the congress and knowledge that will company should pay their fair share. it makes little sense when american citizens are paying $4 a gallon in most parts of the united states. taxpayers subsidizing oil

companies making record profits. you can go to their prospective websites and find out more for yourself. elaine, democratic line, long beach, california. caller: one of the things that astonishes me about the united states of america is that people forget history. the federal reserve bank is supposed to be the people's bank. it is not supposed to be the bank the wall street uses as their piggy bank. even john boehner does not remember history. he elected a bunch of people, they do not know the constitution although they tried to hold it up as a banner. they do not know what the federal reserve does. one of the things that happens, we paid our money in the muscles of security, medicare, federal reserve, all that stuff, and then we do not get it back out. the regular people do not benefit from what the federal reserve does.

i find it interesting that we all we use people to go with philosophers like ayn rand. i read her, and all that philosophy is that as a philosophy of selfishness. she said of herself. she has no religion, she was about self. that is what her philosophy was. and that is what their philosophy is. we choose them to look over our money. host: there is the latest from john mccain. it gives a link for your viewing. and that is all from twitter this morning. georgia, independent line. the wellhead, daryl. caller: we are finally on the topic that makes sense. the federal reserve, i don't

think a lot of people understand. the government does not print their own money. we do not print our own money. and we are in debt. host: what you think about the news conference? understanding the operation of the federal reserve? caller: that is good because people need to understand this. i'll always been an avid reader and i was interested in these kind of things. it seems crazy to me that basically people owe them money. no one should have the right to own money. the seven bankers who founded the federal reserve, their air is still owned the federal reserve. they loan money to the government, if we print in our own money, would we be in debt? i do not think so. host: valparaiso, indiana, on our independent line. caller: were continuing on that.

let's blow away the smoke of who these seven people are and who controls the word. does not talk about global list in the league is, let's talk about the zionist jews. if you look up purim in the iraq war as an libya, 2003, just this year, all the bloodshed in purim, going to agent babylon better known as iraq, is the design of the jews. host: wisconsin is a less called. john, independent line. kenosha, good morning. go ahead. caller: this is a change from chicago. host: go ahead. caller: i like to comment on a couple of callers that call them. the federal government benefits from the federal reserve in

existence. they do not have to be accountable to making money. they'll let somebody else do it, and then they borrow the money and say, we do not know why they gave us all that money, we did not needed. but we will take it and we will spend it. if the government made our money, with the people in charge now, our money would stop being worth anything. it would not be worth the cotton is printed on. host: that is our last caller. we will take a look -- before i tell you about that, we have been talking about the news conference all morning. you can see for yourself on c- span at 2:15 p.m. today with their reserve chairman ben bernanke, history in the making and that is the first-ever news conference conducted by a fed chairman. you can see that live at 2:15

p.m. on our main channel, c- span. i'll let and new hampshire, politics there will be the topic coming up on this program as we talk about the various to the best those who aspire to be president, talking to people. we will talk to two reporters from those respective states. first, we will look at how the economy and employment has changed over the years. a new study by u.s. 2010, an organization looking at numbers since 2000, the unemployment picture, the economic picture, and talking about that, harry holzer of georgetown university. we will have the discussion when we come right back. ♪ >> if they send me the bill in

its present form, i will sign it. ok, any questions? [laughter] helen? >> are you still here? >> almost every year the president and journalists meet to make fun of themselves. president obama will be there this saturday. watch live or go back and watch the past dinner. online at the c-span video library, at every program since 1987. watch what you want when you want. >> there new features at congressional, call to find intermission a better elected official. daily schedules, the full list of members, a video of every house and senate session, and the progress of bills and votes. take a look at c- span.org/congress.

>> the c-span networks -- providing coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social media networking sites. view our content anytime at the c-span video library. we take you on the road with our digital content vehicle. it is washington your way. the c-span networks -- now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guests, harry holzer of georgetown university. it is in connection with the studies done in connection with 2010. an uneven road. what kind of questions you ask yourself entering into this type of research? guest: we're looking for two sets of issues.

what is going on in this recession, the most severe since the 1930's? who is been hurt? how long will last? what is there prospect of recovery? in the second is a longer-term view from the peak to peak to the last visit -- business cycle. what is going on, who is benefiting in not? a lot of workers were not doing well even before the recession hit. host: can you paint a picture statistically, the personnel and what they're facing economically, and their job prospects and compare what we saw over the recession since 2000? guest: there are a lot of workers. groups that have benefited the least from any strong labor activity are less educated workers, especially less educated men. they took a beating even in that period, 2000-2007. and then they were hit very hard, very high unemployment

rates among less and educated men. now they have such long unemployment time, it will be hard for them to get back into the labor market. host: as far as education, what puts them into that condition? guest: traditionally these men have depended on manufacturing sectors for these type of jobs. what has been missing in the united states is good paying jobs for people without post- secondary training. all the sudden, that good job disappears, replaced by technology or a job being shipped overseas. they had a real time finding a possibly good job in this labor market, or even a stronger labor market if they do not have the skills for the jobs being created. host: those who have the jobs, what is their hourly wage looking like?

guest: wage improvements have been very moderate even before the recession. in my paper, a show that this was a strong of -- this was strong productivity growth, but very little showing up in wages at all. average wage growth is only 1%, much less than productivity. and for less educated workers and especially men, it was closer to 0%. in annual earnings, if anything, was negative, because unemployment -- employment was falling off. the american economy is becoming more productive. we are squeezing more and more productivity in terms of goods and services out of workers. often with technology, importing and exporting some services overseas, and we're able to produce more goods and services. historically that has meant that the dow you that shows up in the paycheck of workers, but much

less of that has happened this time for many different reasons. health care of sort some of that, in a disproportionate amount would to the very high earners, the ceo's, the money market managers, for a whole set of reasons that was not productive for the u.s. economy. host: hourly wages to rates of education, your paper found that the high school graduate earned $16.26 average. back to 2000, college degree, at $18.31 in change. a sauciers to become a $20.60. bachelor's degree, $27.11. this was back in 2000. we'll look to some other numbers but what has changed? host: of fewer workers at top

have benefited. people who are doing well in 2000, they were rewarded even more heavily in the labor market because their skills are different, and employers are looking for the inside, creativity, that they bring in they are rewarding them heavily. most other workers, even run-of- the-mill college graduates, they were treading water. but the gap was still quite large. i still think education, some type of post-secondary education remains a good bet for most workers. thinning out what works and make sure that that will be rewarded by a good job, that is what we have to work on, making sure that the education matches up with good jobs being created. host: the study take into account those trying to get that education but factoring in the cost of achieving that? guest: i delicate that in the study.

others have done that. but it is still a good investment. my biggest concern about the current jobs and skill market, so many workers going off to college and then walk away with no degree and the credentials. they put the money down on the table, or is the government's money in the case of pell grants, but they did not complete any degree or credential. host: harry holzer of georgetown university talking about wages and unemployment and labor. here is how you can ask questions. here the telephone numbers. if you could send us an e-mail, that is that the journal@c- span.org. you can also tweaked the twitter to us.

their efforts on capitol hill about jobs and wages, but also at the white house. guest: there are two sets of issues. one is a recession and a very slow climb out. i think the obama administration's efforts have been mostly successful and not making things a lot worse. a recession that could have been catastrophic was not a catastrophe. it limited the fall and started a moderate recovery. the problem is that the recovery is not strong enough to receive quickly. i would've preferred more money targeted directly at job creation, other public service employment or subsidies for employers hiring, not that type of very expensive, across the board tax credits that do not create a lot of jobs. and we have to keep our eye on the long-term trend. that involves skill building that is relevant for the good jobs, and encouraging employers to create good jobs and good

skilled workers. and then support for the people who still need them, whose best prospect will always be a low- wage job. but that is the broad trend of what i look for. host: as far as efforts on both the republican democratic side for austerity programs, dealing with long-term debt and deficits, how many of those factor in? you shot -- you describe job assistance programs to help people get those better jobs and make those better wages. guest: i have a lot of concerns about the deficit and debt we are piling up over the long term. the conversation right now is a very distorted. the long-term debt and deficit problems are a problem with defense and entitlement spending, and revenue been too low. people want to cut the small slice of the federal budget, and non-defense in discretionary spending, that affects job programs and education programs.

they have a good track record, a small amount of money, a good investment in the skilled workers, and that is where the budget ax is falling, inappropriately in my view. host: both parties? guest: 1 party goes that way much more than the others. republicans seem to be wanting to cut spending even in the good productivity. and some democrats are going along with that and i think it is a mistake. host: maryland, your first for our guest. caller: you spoke about on educated being more unemployed? i do not think so. right now we have a lot of on educated mexicans that are coming in illegally, and they have no problems finding jobs. i think it's something around the black male community.

[unintelligible] they're paying for prisoners to be locked up then to have positive workers out here. q. should go back and look to see how this economy is really affecting the black male community with the unemployment and falling illegal immigrants to migrate across the line without are arresting them, without even asking for id. guest: unfortunately, i have to agree with what -- some of what he said. i have studied unemployment issues for black men, and they are very severe. even in very good times, black men have done poorly in the labor market and there are a lot of reasons for that. we incarcerate way too many of these young men and spend enormous resources to keep them locked up. we're but don -- we're beyond what is productive. i don't think that has so much to do with illegal immigrants.

that is a small part of the equation. they are taking low-wage jobs that the native born men are not interested in having. and in this recession, they have taken a huge beating as well. so many of them were in the construction industry and it got hit very severely. it looks like the unemployment -- the employment rates for documented and undocumented immigrants took a real beating in 2007 and 2008. host: new york, your next. mike, the republican line. caller: i wanted to build on that. what are the actual figures that illegal immigrants cheapen -- keep our wages stagnant? they have a major effect on how wages and not growing, 2000- 2010. the wages have not grown even 1%. they have to have some type of

trickle-down or trickle up affect to keep the economy static. most people did not realize how much of an effect that they have. the construction industry, the money is not going back into the economy. it is being illegally spent in the black market, going back to their countries. guest: i agree that wages have been stagnant over the last decade. especially for the population we're talking about. i do not agree that that is mostly because of the illegal immigrants. there been a lot of studies on this. economists have some disagreements on how much, but that that is fairly modest. in the construction industry, they matter. if you focus exclusively on that industry, the presence of undocumented workers has limited the ability of native workers to get decent paying jobs.

but the negative effects are very modest over the whole economy. it does not explain this stagnation. if you are a consumer can you have to buy housing, and you are better off. if you are low-income and you need to buy housing, you're better off. so there are pluses and minuses, but i do not think immigration is a big part of the story of the stagnation of labor. but they are a small part. host: outside factors like housing and food prices, how do they add in to the economic health of most people in the united states? guest: there is something the of economists call real wages. when you steady wages, you want real wages, and with how those way to stack up against consumer prices. if you look at all with the dollar level, you see some

increases. when you factor in inflation, things look flattered despite the fact that the economy has become so much more productive. host: information from the census department that among 25-29 year-old women, they had at least a bachelor's host: 37% of females had a bachelor's degree, compared to 35% of males. guest: if you look at the trend, on average, men still get paid more than women in the u.s. economy, but the trend has been more positive for women at almost all levels. women are adapting better to the service economy and they are outperforming men in the classroom and they are getting more education. that will cause them, over time, to catch up even more and in some communities, to surpass the

men appeared we have a new gender gap. it is a gender gap in education and this one favors women. host: what is driving that? guest: it is not just in the u.s. we see this all around the world. the way education gets delivered in the classroom, it seems to work better for women. from the time they are young girls, they are more able to sit there in the classroom and behave, listen, reid, and study -- read, and study. host: harry holzer of georgetown university joining us. jerry, mass., on the line for democrats. caller: i do not blame mexico or the immigrants. or china. since the early 1970's and we've had smaller government for 40

years, we've had criminal activity allowed into our banking system. right now, we are paying enormous amounts of funds just to finance our debt. we probably pay more to finance our debt than we do to finance the pentagon, or social security, medicare, or medicaid. right now, there's a house resolution, 1489, the return to prove in banking act. it has been sponsored by four congressmen. it is to restore glass-steagall. it was not only eliminate the speckled with -- this negative -- eliminate the speculating and return us to a chrysostom -- to

a credit system, which would create tens of millions of jobs. guest: the caller is mostly talking about the financial markets. this is a funny thing. some kinds of regulations in the financial market have not always been very productive. there are some good reasons to scrap some of those regulations. some of them are clearly necessary. i agree with the caller that financial markets -- have seen some very screwy things. we build a financial bubble that was largely-driven. it was encouraging people to take out more and more debt. it was okay until the bubble burst three or four years ago and then the house of cards collapsed. i agree about glass-steagall. i think it was probably a mistake to resent that law.

the reforms president obama enacted last year were a start in the right direction. we have to find the right balance. good functioning capital markets are very important for international activity. some regulations get in the way, but there comes another point where we start feeding speculative bubbles. it does a lot of damage to the economy. even when the bubble was growing, the amount of resources that went into bonuses was astounding and unrelated to anything they were doing. host: las vegas, nevada, barry on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: good morning, professor. when the aghast

illegal population has also taken a horrendous hit [inaudible] host: our guest has addressed that issue several times this morning. do you have another question for him? caller: yes, not a question. it is a comment. the reason -- i am sure all these facts and figures are correct that the professor has given to us, but part of the reason people in the democratic movement do not understand is when you have 47% of people that do not pay income tax, they have no desire to try to improve themselves and improve their wage level. it is very obvious.

i'm sad to say that c-span has basically adopted the democratic talking points. i'm afraid now at the end of four to seven years -- it might as well be, "the program was paid for by dnc." guest: let me make it clear i am not on the dnc table. i do not speak for anybody but myself. its true that we have taken 40% of income earners of the tax payrolls. that partly in response to the massive growth of inequality in the labour market. i still think the incentives are there for people to work and strive whenever possible. the incentives do not come from the tax system, but from the wages and benefits. if anything, the inequality has grown so extreme in america of

relative to any other industrial country in the world, that when the waiter returns become too low, that's when it starts to limit the incentives of a lot of those low-wage workers to stay in the market. it's not that they pay too little in taxes. is that their wage process is too low for them to reattached to the labour market. host: on twitter -- living wages versus prices means a real wage would be at least $20 to $25 per hour. guest: in reality, a lot of households have multiple earners. it makes sense in some cases, but not in all cases. host: what cases? guest: if you are talking about a single worker feeding a family of three or four, that is what it would take. of course, that a single worker might have access to different types of benefits and earned

income tax credits and things like that to bolster their low wages. it's a little more complicated. host: and factor in education level and things of that nature. guest: the living wage, people have to earn a certain amount -- our economy is not going to generate those kind of wages for every worker in the economy. that is impossible. workers that earn low wages, sometimes without health care, sometimes without benefits. host: new jersey, go ahead. mark on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i think the caller is part of the elite establishment in pushing the country towards globalization. we started out with clinton, which stripped our industrial complex and shipped our jobs to

foreign countries. then we got the other part of this, referring to the illegal aliens that come in here and decimate the low income families in our country. this is all about a global takeover. we need to review the restoration of the patriots controlling our government, instead of these elitists. host: fairfax, virginia. pete on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am one of the examples. i did two years in college. i looked into a job -- i lucked into a job for 14 years and then went into my own business. course, that crashed in 2008. i go back into the job market. i have not made a resume in years.

i have a wealth of experience. that was not working, so i decided to go back to school. they will give you the money to go back to school. my grades were good enough. they decided that was ok. i'm an example of the opportunity to move forward and take advantage of the downtime. i do have a better half that's making a little bit of income to help make this happen. on another note, if i can touch base on the change in corporate america, i'm all for it. if you think about this recession, as you want to call it, these corporations started to refine the use of their employees and operate under a reduced staff. as a result of that, they are hiring back employees to replace the ones they had to lay off at a lesser percentage. that will take a chunk and i do

not think it will ever go back to the rate it was at before. guest: the caller said several different things. i'm glad he does emphasize the opportunities for retraining laid-off workers, if they have skills. there are segments of the labor market that will be growing. some workers, like him, when thwent to community college and they do not see the immediate payoff. i think it is there in the long term. it's not there for everybody immediately. that's a challenge. i'm glad he emphasizes the possibility of getting retraining. the other issue -- companies are in the business for profit. if they can enhance their profits, they are going to do that. they have always done that. the economy has ways of adjusting to that. the economy has ways of creating new jobs to replace the old ones that those companies get rid of. the question is, over the long

term, what the quality of those jobs will be and the quality of the workers trying to fill them. how can we improve the quality of the jobs and the workers? host: when you say "quality," you mean the type of job? guest: pay, benefits, retirement support, and things like that. even when the economy does create jobs, for some workers, especially the less educated, the quality and pay of the jobs is too low. about the health care law, if you are in one of those low-wage jobs that does not provide employer-provided health care, the government will make it easier for that. the public sector helps to supplement the benefits that the private sector used to provide for this chunk of workers. host: louisville, kentucky, democrats' line.

caller: michele from michigan. host: hi. go ahead. caller: my question is this. do you agree with greenspan that we should go back to the original income tax that we had in 2000 before the big tax cut for corporations? that would be for everybody, not just corporations. the second thing would be -- we get a lot of blame for nafta being the reason for jobs leave in this country. don't you also think it was not only nafta, but the big tax cuts for the corporations? number three, what do you consider middle class income today? guest: several different questions there. i was not a supporter of bush tax cuts. they did not all go to

corporations, but they were heavily concentrated on high- income individuals. about 40% went to the top 1%. i never thought that was a good idea. i simply think we cannot afford them. in some sense, i would probably scrap all of those tax cuts, except maybe the ones for the really bottom. we simply cannot afford them. they are contributing to the debt problem. what do i consider to be a middle class jobs? i usually think of something like twice the poverty level. something in the ballpark of $40,000. middle class covers a wide range. lower middle class probably starts in the ballpark of $40,000 and goes well up to $200,000. host: rochester, new york, robert on the line for republicans. caller: mr. holzer, i believe you are completely out of touch with the illegal immigration

problem and jobs. explain to me why the 12 independent banks that are privately held -- it's a violation of the fourth amendment. if we cannot protect our southern borders, what we do in the middle east if you are a general in the pentagon? guest: there are a lot of things mixed in there. i'm not an expert on the middle east. i will tell you that the problem with immigration does not explain -- you had criticism of banks, some of which may be valid, but i would not in a big chunk of this on international flows in immigration. host: a tweet -- guest: [laughter] probably not the apocalypse. it's probably a sign of how bad the labor market is.

if mcdonald's provides a big chunk, people are pretty happy to see them come around. i think it is a good indication of just how bad the recession has been and how modest and slow the recovery has been. host: arkansas, william on the line for independents. caller: yes, sir. i think the capital gains tax cut is part of the problem. is the reason jobs have not come back. if i can buy oil futures, make $100,000, and a 15% tax, and if i hire people, get a company, get a building, pay all of the fees and everything i have to to start a business, i make $100,000, and i have to pay 30% tax on that. that is where our jobs are. that's the reason gasoline and food prices are higher, because of the capital gains cuts. if a swap the two, the whole

world would turn around. guest: i do not think the capital gains tax is a big part of the story and i do not think it is responsible. at the same time, i kind of agree a little bit. i think the capital gains cuts have gone too far. i think they cost the treasury to much money. in the end, they are not terribly productive. too much money is wasted from the u.s. treasury on cuts that i do not think to a lot of good. i do not think they do a lot of harm. revenue doesrigi harm, as well. host: a line in your paper says, "the percentage of unemployed workers out of work for 10 months grew in 2010 about 46%, compared to 25% at the height of the last recession."

guest: it is the severity of the recession. it's so much deeper than the previous recessions have been. secondly, it is the persistence of the recession. the recovery in the labor market is so slow. once you are unemployed, a chunk of people stay unemployed for some time. even when we get out of this mess in the labor market, workers have been out of the labor market for two or three years. they have a harder time coming back in. their skills are a little rusty. their contacts are a little obsolete. we saw a similar thing in europe in the 1980's. the longer this goes on, the harder it is to come back in. it starts off as a recession problem. it becomes more of what economists call a structural unemployment problem. a severe problem created by the length of unemployment.

secondly, the damage it does to the individuals themselves. host: these numbers reflect those continuing to look for jobs or those who have given up altogether? guest: that number is based on the official definition of unemployment. you are right. there's another group, the underemployed. people who either dropped out of the labor market altogether, stop looking for work, or people that took a part-time low-wage job as well below the level of what they're capable of doing. host: louisiana. emily on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i know this will not be a popular question or comment. i would like the professor to shed some light on this. everybody is talking about the economy, economy, economy. i'm just concerned. i used to think i was in the middle class.

it is really rough. why can't we take matters into our own hands? if they democrats and republicans -- if the democrats and republicans are not able to handle it. maybe, a professor, you can help me with the numbers. i was thinking, ok, it's hard for us as it is. pardon my ignorance. what if we take matters into our own hands, the ones that are struggling -- maybe $2 per month, if everybody in america could do that, would that help the deficit we are in? guest: i'm not sure i understand the question. the economic problems are not going to be easy for any politician to solve.

when you have an economy where a financial bubble has burst and a lot of people have piled up too much debt, it's hard to think of any policy that can give you quickly out of that. politicians will have to have a more honest discussion about where the deficit comes from. i do not think the answer lies with individual citizens taking money out of their pockets and making contributions. politicians have to have a more honest conversation about what is driving the deficit and debt and honestly deal with what has to be done. on the revenue side, stop promising tax cuts. our tax revenue is very low. taxes have to go up, period. we cannot continue to play this game of promising more and more tax cuts. host: how far across the board? guest: probably on most workers. i agree with the obama administration that a lot of the tax cuts targeted at the rich

will be the first to go, but they are probably not the last. i think a broad swath of americans will probably have to pay higher taxes, if you want to continue to have good levels of services that the public seems to be demanding. those things cost a lot of money. this nonsense that comes from across the street on capitol hill that the problem is our taxes are too high -- that is not supported by any evidence compared to our history, compared to any other country in the world. our tax revenue is simply too low to finance the services americans are demanding. host: about eight more minutes with our guest. alabama, a republican line. go ahead. caller: well, we have been losing jobs since the 1970's. all the way back to the 1970's.

the housing boom is what pick up a lot of the labor. republicans have been giving tax breaks since way back. that has not done a bit of good. we're still in the hole we are in. i think we need to create more jobs somehow or another. guest: i agree. we do not create the jobs. the jobs mostly come from the private sector. i think the public sector should have done more direct job creating activities, either through public service employment, infrastructure building. most of it will come from the private sector. they simply have to decide to hire. over time, it becomes less a question of the quantity of jobs and more about the quality of jobs in the quality of workers to fill them. and what can we do?

making sure they have the workers they need and creating jobs, good jobs, for good workers. there's an argument from the private sector that indeed their ability to create new jobs. regulation has to be decided on a case by case basis. some of them are too onerous. some of them are not. safety and health regulation, minimum-wage laws, create minimum job loss and some substantial benefits for workers.

host: hartford, connecticut, good morning >> caller: good morning -- good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the hot seat this morning. i hope you will maklet me make a few points before you push the button on me. people should remember that their real property, their homes and their property, are the final collateral for debt. bearing that in mind, and this is an important issue. nobody wants to cut. a congressman entered a bill to do a cut across the board that got nowhere. you talk about foreign aid and the first response you get is that it is a small percentage of the budget.

i used to buy my coffee down the corner every morning and now i make my coffee at home. is that a large entry on the liability side of my balance sheet? no, but i still did it. i'm calling from proletariat purgatory here and i have a direct line to profligate paradise. everybody worries about their own oxe getting gored and k street marches on an inside the beltway continues as usual. guest: cutting spending in a weak economy during a recession period is a bad idea. right now, we have a long-term debt problem. we need long-term solutions to that, not short-term cuts. dealing with the long term cuts

-- you do not want to cut productive investments in education, job training, and employment services. you probably do need to cut spending on defense, which is going beyond our needs, and two, spending on retirement to help our retirement programs, which we do need to reform. more sensible ways to rein in the growth. that's what we need to be talking about, honestly, but not short-term, across-the-board cuts. that would do damage to the economy. host: take this one as you will. this is from twitter. guest: there is a whole separate issue about the cost of private education in america and why they have gone up, in some sense, very dramatically. it's a concern that a good,

private sector colleges are simply falling out of reach for middle-class americans, unless they get financial aid. some people can get financial aid and some cannot. i do not have a good answer for that question. it's a little bit outside of my expertise. at some point, we need to rein in the costs. host: the,, washington. -- tacoma, washington. caller: earlier in the hour, you said the public sector workers -- when the stimulus was spent, they did not spend enough. you have to consider this country was built against the redcoats, against the king, against a large government. we have a professor advocating that we did not spend enough. we have $272 trillion of state

pension liabilities. if you look at the amount of debt we owe to keep government workers in their seats, their quality of life, their sailboats, second homes, when people like myself, who work for themselves, pay for an additional premium in taxes to cover someone else's 99-week -- my credit card bills are now at $42,000 because i have to keep myself alive. host: caller, finalize this. we have to go. caller: this anxiety about socialism in this great country -- how can you come to "washington journal" and say the problem is we did not spend enough money on federal workers? guest: unfortunately, you misinterpreted my question. i did not say we should spend more money on federal workers. i said the stimulus package should have been bigger, should

have provided more stimulus when the economy needs stimulus. when the private sector collapses, that is when it's the role of the public sector to step in and provide that spending on goods and services. that creates jobs. that's the kind of spending time talking about. you raised the issue of sectors -- you raise the issue of public sector workers. that's a legitimate point. the state levels, the pensions, they do need to be renegotiated. i do think some of the pension liabilities are serious. this is a separate issue from the stimulus. the stimulus could have been bigger. could have been better targeted on job creation. too much of the stimulus went to tax cuts. almost every economist will tell you if did very little good in terms of stimulating the economy. that is what i'm talking about. stimulating spending, not throwing more money at washington bureaucrats. host: harry holzer of georgetown university, thank you. guest: thank you. host: later on, we will bring

you radio shows from iowa that deal with politics, especially 2012 politics. you will get a chance to hear one today called "the exchange closed lower at 1:00 p.m. -- " the exchange" at 1:00 p.m. out of iowa city. we take a look at iowa politics from the microphones of various talk radio shows. later on in this program, you will meet the grand prize winner of our student cam. he did a piece on compromise in washington. also joining us is donald. coming up, we will focus on two states, iowa and new hampshire. james kendall.

we'll talk about 2012 right after this break from c-span radio. >> ahead of today's first-ever news conference by fed chairman ben bernanke, stocks are set to rise. mr. bernanke is expected to discuss the job market, inflation, and prospective for economic growth. ahead of the opening bell, the dow jones is up. c-span radio and television will have live coverage. turning to international news, more violence in afghanistan. eight nato service members and a contractor are dead after an afghan military pilots opened fire on the foreign troops following a dispute at the airport in cobble. the shooting is the deadliest incident in which a member of the afghan security forces turned against coalition forces. the situation in syria, the

united nations secretary general ban ki-moon is condemning the continuing violence against anti-government protesters and specifically the use of tanks and allied fighter. he's calling for a independent inquiry. members of the un security council will meet today to discuss a joint statement condemning the violence. more than four hundred people have been killed since pro- democracy protests began last month. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, "washington journal" about the news of the day, connecting with public officials, policy makers, and journalists. live coverage of the u.s. house. also, supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see our signature interview program. on saturdays, "the communicators." you can also watch our programming any time at c-

span.org and it is all searchable at our c-span video library. c-span, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> if they send me the bill in its present form, i will sign it. ok, any questions? [laughter] >> are you still here? >> almost every year, the president and journalists meet at the white house correspondents' dinner. search, watch, click, and share online at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as promised, we will spend the next 45 minutes talking

about 2012 politics out of iowa and new hampshire. on the left of your screen, mike glover of the associated press. james pindell on your right out of manchester, new hampshire. he is their political director. i will ask you both this same question. can you give our viewers a sense of what is going on as far as your respective states are concerned as far as visits from candidates, how often, and how interested the people of your respective states are in 2012 presidential politics. mr. glover? guest: the campaigns have started late, much later this time than they would have an earlier cycles, but they're starting now. we have candidates putting organizations on the ground. it is starting to happen. people are very interested. in my experience, people have been waiting for this to happen. they have been a little in

patient. they have been looking forward to this campaign. host: mr. james pindell? guest: same reaction here. folks are very excited to get this campaign going. all we needed for many months was candidates. this was a very exciting time for new hampshire. we have our first big cattle call of candidates coming in on friday night and even bigger names. today, we will have a circus atmosphere, probably, with donald trump making his first trip to any primary state. he will visit new hampshire in just a few minutes, flying in on a helicopter, actually. that's how he does it. for the most part, the activity has really increased at the beginning of march. it has really continued. host: one of the pieces in "the washington post" talks about donald trump.

she describes him as this. "an avalanche of free publicity for the man who craves it." guest: look, a lot of questions will be answered today. for the most part, people do not believe he is serious about running for president. they are serious about trying to find someone else to feel their passion. for the most part, we are not finding a lot of folks who are really catching on as candidates. for perspective, former governor mitt romney was here in southern new hampshire. we're very familiar with him. he has about a 30-point lead in the state. the big question is, who is in first place? the big question is, who is in second place? no one expects mitt romney to continue to have that lead.

in the last couple polls, donald trump has been in second place. sometimes, it is rudy giuliani. he obviously has name recognition. we will get a better sense today if this is a circus, if he is mocking our process, or if he is a serious candidate. host: how did you look at donald trump? guest: one of the things that fascinates me -- republicans are looking for someone who they think can actually beat barack obama. they have a number of candidates, tim pawlenty and rick santorum, who have spent a lot of time and money here putting their organizations together. it's difficult for a lot of republicans to see them beating barack obama. republicans are craving somebody who might have the money, the name, whatever it takes to win a

general election match up with barack obama. some people think donald trump may bring that to the table. i think a lot of republicans are looking for that in a potential candidate, somebody who can win a general election. guest: a new gallup poll out today shows that 64% of americans would never vote for donald trump to be president. we will watch this of this tension that occurs every primary season in infrastructure and new hampshire about the heart versus the head. the debate will certainly fluctuate. i'm not sure donald trump will be it at the end of the day. host: we will take some calls this morning. we will put the lines up there.

if you live in iowa or new hampshire, a special line for you this morning. for those of you who live in those states, you can contribute. mike glover, go ahead. guest: what i was going to say about donald trump, this is a flirtation. a lot of republicans are in use or intrigued with the flotation of donald trump. host: royal oak, michigan. jim on the line for independents. go ahead. caller: yes, i think may be asking you two gentlemen this question may be wrong. is it not ridiculous that we have two states, the last time i checked, accounted for less than 1% of the total population -- are going to determine who gets the presidential nomination? if this is nothing tail wagging

the dog, this is the buck wagging the dog. host: mike glover? guest: it has got to start somewhere. voters have spent a lot of time in new hampshire paying attention and watching presidential politics and studying candidates. yeah, voters in those two states have proven their ability to make candidates walk the walk and talk the talk. yeah, i think they have proven themselves good places to start the campaign. i think you need to understand that they do not nominate candidates. they just start candidates on their way. in iowa, we have three tickets out. what we do in iowa and new hampshire -- we do not decide who gets nominated, we decide who does not get nominated.

i think the two states are good for that. host: james, as you answer this question, factor in the twitter. it says, "when was the last time new hampshire today president -- new hampshire picked a president?" guest: that's a good question. we had john mccain. before that, we picked john kerry. you have to go back all the way to 1988 before you have a candidate that actually won. you have to get at least set the place to be the nominee. the reality, -- i went to college in des moines. is this process perfect? of course not.

no process is perfect. then you have to take a process in which it chose the best candidates will emerge. i happen to believe that if you have a person running for president that makes a decision on who the winners and losers will be, when we go to war, and how we decide to send our youngest and brightest and bring this out to war. at some point, these people should have to talk to americans. if you are a highfalutin u.s. senator or someone on the list that could run for president, you do not often run into everyday americans. iowa and new hampshire, because of their size and style of politics, forces that conversation to happen. beyond that, the larger states have a much bigger role when it comes to donating money and support to candidates. california, new york, florida, michigan have much bigger roles

in the election. host: franklin, new hampshire. leo on the line for independents, you are next. caller: james, what are the state legislators do iing. guest: in new hampshire, we had a huge election in 2010. we went from a majority in the house and senate and even the body called the executive council, which is sort of the governor's council, it all went from democratic control to republican control in very big numbers. in fact, veto-proof majorities. it sets the framework for what the energy is. in 2003, we had democrats trying to nominate a candidate against a republican incumbent president. it eventually came down to a electability decision. around the country, democrats

got creamed in 2002. they are much more interested in compromising to find an electable candidate. in 2011, like right now, we saw our last election where republicans were fired up. they had big wins. now we find legislators -- of course, we have the largest legislature in the country. they are fired up and not really willing to compromise. we had a lot of hard for republicans who will stick with hard-core republican candidates. that may benefit someone like michele bachmann or santorum. as we spend more time talking about who will appeal to the conservatives, which is a much more important conversation in infrastructure, -- in iowa, in new hampshire, 43% are independents. host: amelia on the line for

democrats, go ahead. caller: yes, i want to say that i think obama is a real good president. mitt romney, right now, in new hampshire, he has a slight lead on obama in new hampshire. i still think that obama is much stronger than any other presidential candidate like mitt romney, rick santorum, or donald trump -- i do not know. he's not going to run, anyway. host: mike glover, in iowa, factor in ron paul's announcement yesterday.

guest: yes, it will be a fascinating thing to watch. right now, we are not talking about republicans versus barack obama. we are talking about a republican primary field. in this state, the republican party is pretty much prisoner of the evangelical christian white rinright wing. that will have an enormous impact as this primary goes forward -- as the caucus campaign goes forward. it means that candidates like michele bachmann will have a leg up over candidates like mitt romney, who is a much more moderate republican candidate. mitt romney spent a lot of time in iowa during the last election and did not do very well. i do not think he will spend that timkind of time and money again. it will be a campaign for heart

and soul of the iowa christian alliance. that will dictate who comes here, how often they come here, and who wins the thing. host: as far as the iowa secretary of state, as of the first of this month, there are 696,000 people in iowa who register themselves with no party. what does that mean? guest: that means independents will settle general elections three you have to remember independents do not have a strong tradition of participating in iowa caucuses. they are dominated by active democrats and republicans. independents settle general elections, but they generally do not participate in iowa caucuses. iowa caucuses are partisan events. they are dominated by democrats and republicans. host: hampton, new hampshire is next. john, on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. how're you doing? host: go ahead.

caller: i want to comment on donald trump going for president. he's a fantastic financial person and he has gained much wealth. a business is one thing. running a country, you are running it for the people, not for yourself, in trying to control. i do not think he would be very good here in the united states. mitt romney, on the other hand, all we have to do is see what he did with the massachusetts. i do not know if he would make it either. that's my opinion. host: who are you favoring? caller: at this point right now, i would not be surprised to see obama again. host: james pindell? guest: this state has been trending more and more democratic.

approval rating is now in the low 40's. he's very vulnerable in this state. the conventional wisdom among democrats and republicans here is that barack obama may win reelection in terms of the country, but he will probably not win new hampshire as a particular state. host: according to the secretary of state, the amount of democrats and republicans is about the same, but the undecided is 392,000 plus. guest: we call them undeclared. the democrats have made significant gains. in fact, following the 2008 election, they had a 5000-person registration advantage. the republicans now have a slight edge. the story is also independents. they are allowed, unlike iowa, not just to show up on new hampshire primary day, become a

registered voter, pick a party, locked out, and no longer be a member of the party anymore. that's how our party work spirit is very inclusive and very open. it also means, for some republicans, they would not prefer these independents would have a say. it also might be a good indication of who would be the best general election candidate. host: republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. what is the same thing happens? republicans will do everything they can to put someone up there who will not win against obama. they do not want a regime change. as far as mitt romney or donald trump -- we could have mickey mouse running for all that matters. the media will sell someone who is not going to win against obama until we have to go by a

person's voting record. ron paul has a voting record that is impeccable. you know where mitt romney is. we know where donald trump is. donald trump does not have a voting record, but that's what i wanted to say about this whole thing. we will watch the republican party do everything they can to make sure we have another john mccain, who will not win against obama. host: mike glover, i'm going to ask you to answer that, but first a question from waterloo, iowa. david on the line for democrats. are you there? go ahead. caller: hello? hello? yes, i'm here. host: caller, stop listening to the tv. go ahead with your statement or question. caller: i believe obama will probably win this primary. i think the republicans -- any candidate that they may have does not really have a chance at this point against mr. obama.

i think the key point behind that is that -- -- is the -- look at what is going on in wisconsin. we see what is going on with the people of that state and we do not think -- well, i do not think the republicans can generate a player in the national committee that will be able to challenge mr. obama. host: we will leave it there. mr. glover, i will add one more thing to this mix. this is from twitter. with all that in mind, go ahead. guest: yes, they do. they are driving the republican party in that direction. they are driving the debate within the republican party in that direction. that's a problem for the republican party. in new hampshire -- iowa has

roughly the number of democrats and republicans. they're both outnumbered by independents. independents decide general elections. increasingly, within the republican party, your finding that the right wing of the republican party is dictating what happens in the party. that means that a candidate like michele bachmann could do very well in the republican caucus campaign. a candidate that appeals to that wing of the party can do very well in a republican primary. when it comes to a general election, it may not do so well. they may not be able to capture the independent vote, which will swing back and forth between democrats and republicans, depending on the move, depending on the elections. that is a challenge for the republican party. one of the first tasks -- is often said the first thing a primary voter is supposed to do is pick a candidate that appeals

to the beliefs of the party, but b, can win the general election. they will have a tough candidates time tough that can -- it will have a tough time choosing candidates that can be barack obama. it will be tough because of the makeup of the primary field. host: houston, texas, good morning. pam on the line for democrats. caller: yes, i agree with what you have obama's been have -- what you have been saying about president obama's chances. one issue is a real thorn in his side and that is the free-trade issue. i voted for him specifically because he was going to take on free trade. in my opinion -- i've owned a business in houston for 30 years. that business is now completely destroyed and it is entirely because of free trade.

the idea that we can continue going down this free trade pact while our economy continues to go down is ludicrous. obama has signed three new free trade agreements after he said that he would take on the free traders and if anything, we would average rate for the going back on our free trade agreement -- we would abrogate or go back on our free trade agreement. i will probably vote for donald trump in the next election simply because he seems to understand that the reason we're having the problems we're having is because, for example, ge is sending all the jobs to mexico. they are not making any refrigerators in the united states and they're still charging americans the same amount as when they were made in america. host: what caller: you think

of: -- host: what do you think of that? guest: a lot of the new hampshire economy is tied to free trade. you do find pretty much a united consensus of pro-free trade for both barack obama and maybe with some restrictions for him and with the republican party. i do not see this as a disappointing and the general election -- i do not see this as a decisive point in the general election. guest: this has been a huge issue. this has been an emerging issue in the last month or so. frankly, you have to give some credit to donald trump, who really put this on the map. i think he is the first potential presidential candidate to bring the issue to the forefront. this is something he will be talking about a lot today, i think, in new hampshire.

people are asking the questions about what we can do to lower gas prices. the question is whether or not politicians can give an answer they actually believe. locally, we have the new hampshire house speaker tried to offer a gas tax holiday, taking off 5 cents per gallon. for the most part, there's been a big shrub of the shoulders. 85 cents is not going to make a big difference. host: mississippi, independent line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to know whether representative paul ryan is making any effort toward organizing a campaign. if he were to do so, do you think he would be an electable candidate? host: mike glover? guest: no. we have seen no organizing efforts on his part in the state.

yes, i think he could be, should he put the effort out. we are pretty well into this ballgame. the iowa caucuses will be in about 10 months. we're pretty late in this game for someone to begin a campaign right now. i think we have seen the few we will have. i think it's a little late for somebody else to try to enter the field, unless that person was an overarching big-name that could bring that to the race. i do not see that type a personality right now. host: mike glover, what you think the potential of daniels out of indiana? guest: he could be a formidable candidate. he's a midwesterners. we relate to midwesterners. he brings a name i.d. he brings a financial thing to the field. i have to tell you, mitch daniels did himself some harm

with social conservatives when he said it was time for republicans to "call a truce on debating social issues." a lot of people -- a big applause line that you hear at republican events ispeople undel conservatives do not like it. he would have a big hurdle to overcome social conservatives. host: what do you think? guest: obviously he is a social conservative. i believe the republican caucus goers next year, 60% to 65% are evangelical. a statement like that will hurt him. in the state like new hampshire is the second-least religious state in the country. we do not care about social issues.

he has to focus really on fiscal matters. he could be something like a player here. he is completely unknown. he has never visited the state. you do here among certain republican elite they are interested. he's could certainly be a player. -- he could certainly be a player. host: keno on the republican line. for c-span. before psittac i have a citizen who could help is the billbill cohen. what do you think my chances are? energy independence would be the main thing we have to get this country not shoveling the massive transfer of wealth to the middle east and the

vulnerability with all the turmoil. this is a man who could win. what do you think? guest: i did not see anything about the bill cohen running for president. until he comes up here in campaigned himself, his chances are not too hot. you can certainly give him on the ballot. good luck to you. host: as far as parcourse candidates, any in your minds that stand out right now? -- dark horse candidates, any in your minds that stand out right now? guest: obviously mike we will probably talk about the last caucus winner. mike huckabee. john huntsman is also someone

to watch. he is the current ambassador to china. in his resignation becomes official on friday. bill cohen serving for bill clinton. both of them have to explain why they made the move. guest: i think that we are -- we mentioned this a couple of times. we are pretty far into the ball game. we are 10 months from the iowa caucuses. if you're going to start campaigning in iowa, you better be here doing it now appeared and there is not a lot of time for someone to lead in at the last minute, except for a huge name like sarah palin. she could probably jump in the summer and be competitive. the names you were mentioning, it is difficult for me to see how they could begin a campaign at this point and put an

organization together and be competitive in iowa caucuses. host: democrats line. lee from nevada. caller: i would like to thank you for letting us be on and practice democracy. i wanted to say that i voted for republicans and democrats in the past, and i kind of see a bad turn by the republican parties in that you guys keep complaining about how bad everything is, how horrible the government is. in then when you get in it you do everything you can to make government run worse than it already is. i would like to see a little bit of moderation and someone come out of the republican party that actually has real honest the answers.

someone that is a little bit more moderate. someone who wants to really look thise tax loopholes and augus huge transfer of wealth that has gone from the middle class to the rich people. some guy the other set the rich people pay most of the taxes. i said most of the other people do all the work. it is kind of common sense that after you complete decimate the middle class we will be at third world country. host: mike, what would you add to that? guest: that is one of the problems in the republican party right now. i do not anticipate barack obama will have a democratic primary challenge. i think it is largely a republican story. but we're looking at is largely an examination of the republican party. what we're finding is a republican party that is

increasingly dominated by the wing, and it will be a challenge for the party to come up with a nomination that can win the general election. that is a very big challenge for is republican party at as currently structured. we will see what happens over the next six to eight months as the began to whittle the field of potential candidates and see who takes an edge. it is a big challenge for the party, and i am not sure the party is up for it. host: as far as crown teams and organizations, who has the best organization right now in iowa? -- as far as ground teams and organizations, who has the best organization right now in iowa? guest: newt gingrich is most

established. i think they are establishing the republican ground games that we will see. i think they have an edge right now. host: we have a call coming in from north liberty, iowa. go right ahead. caller: this is still calling from north liberty, iowa, and i wanted to discuss the local situation in iowa and regards to politics. we have a governor that was elected in november overwhelmingly, but his problem is that he is now giving away money and reducing taxes, and it is on the people that need it in schools. we have a thing here in iowa

called the zero growth, and some school districts are not allowed to tax anymore and they have to go ahead and use their reserve funds. he believes that there should be zero growth in the next two years under his administration. i belong to an organization called i was citizens for community improvement, and we are working with other people throughout the state. host: we will leave it there. i want to read something to you that has just come off "the associated press. they are reporting that the white house has released a copy of the long form version of president obama's birth certificate from hawaii. he is expected to address this issue at 9:45 this morning.

mike glover, you go first. guest: as long as republicans are talking about barack obama's birthday certificate, they better prepare for a second obama presidency. it is the silliest thing i have heard of in a long time. there is room to challenge barack obama, not on this issue. host: what you make of this issue of releasing the birth certificate and a statement at 9:45? guest: i think it is something that the white house is using this common sense for keeping this issue going. it is not a serious issue that will move the independent voters. host: as you see on your screen right now, here is a copy of the certificate that was released by the white house. you can see it on the screen. what do you add to it as far as this announcement and what it

does for this discussion that has been going on as far as 2012 politics is concerned? guest: right now he is about to up the first press conference ever. he is about to have a press conference nationally. whether you agree or not about the merits of this conversation about the birth certificate, you hear from house party to house party jobs, gas prices. these are the things people are really concerned about. things like british of it is a highly partisan conversation that will really not appeal well to independent voters. -- things like birth certificates is a highly partisan conversation that we're really not appeal well to independent voters. guest: this will create doubt among some who believe this was an issue. there will probably be

temporarily keeping this issue in the news media. host: president issues -- the president will address this at 9:45 this morning. if you want to see this, you can see it at 9:45 on c-span.org. at 10:00 we will show it to you. host: mass., go ahead. caller: i have a very bad habit of expressing my opinion in crude terms. i would not vote for obama, because he has been such a terrible lawyer from the very beginning. he says one thing today and two or three days he will change his story. i just do not trust someone that

reacts like that. as far as the birth certificate is concerned, he waited too long to confront that story. i am one of them that believe there is a possibility that certificate would be manufactured. host: let me take one more call. palm bay, florida. keith on the republican line. caller: i am not looking for republican or democrat. i am looking for truth behind their name. the closest i have seen is chris christie. the education system where everyone had to go to college, and half of them are getting a

local arts degree in cannot do labor, so then we have to have you beagles to the real labor. the tax situation where the federal budget is 14 trillion dollars. between the states is another three trillion dollars. just and that alone, not counting cities, local education, and counties your polling 17 trillion dollars out of 14 trillion dollars gdp. host: to wrap it up to both of our guests, tell our viewers what to look for in the next few weeks and months. guest: i think we will have a better sense of who is running for president. this is been a very importanct couple of months. we have learned who was in and out. we have learned the governor of mississippi will not be in. we will have a better sense of who is actually running into is

not running in the next few months. guest: i think we will know what the republican field will look like. i think we have a pretty good idea of art right now, but i think by june we will know what the republican field will look like. i think right now we're going to hear for the next six to eight months about an anti-obama ramp from the republican party that sells very well in republican circles, that excites the bases. i think that is what we will hear over the next six months. host: mike glover works for "the associated press" in iowa. james pendall works for wmtuv in new hampshire. thank you as well. do not forget we will give you more of a i what information as

far as politics is concerned. -- as far as iowa information as far as politics is concerned. you can see the radio show at simulcast on c-span at 1:00 today. it is part of our campaign 2012 coverage. coming up, we will change gears. you will meet the grand prize winner of the 2011 student cam competition. the topic of the documentary was that of the role of compromise in government. >> we cannot continue down this road. >> the senate is an institution built on a compromise. >> this is exactly what our founding fathers did, they compromised.

>> we need a wake-up call. >> september 19, 2010. on this day my family and i departed on a trip to washington, d.c. on this trip i hope to learn more about the history of our nation and our nation's capital. today washington, d.c., is the center of one of the largest metropolitan areas in the country, housing all three bridges of government. they are also home to 174 foreign embassies as well as the nation's monuments and museums. apart from politics, they also have a strong local economy, housing four fortune 500 companies. on november 22, 2010 i interviewed kenneth born. for more information on the

history of the capital city. >> can you imagine that the united states congress met in the capitol building of a state? >> this all changed in june of 1973. the soldiers demonstration was aimed at the state and knocked at congress. congress. at >> paul alexander hamilton was the founding father and wartime hero. >> alexander hamilton believed that the state of pennsylvania was the federal debt. >> hamilton said you have to call an emergency session of congress and get them into the pennsylvania state house before the soldiers get their or we will lose all kinds of jurisdiction in power. >> the emergency session was

called and the congressman entered the building. >> they could argue the demonstration was against congress in the federal government's dignitaries had been insolvent. >> they agreed it pennsylvania did not call up the state militia, -- they agreed it pennsylvania did not collect state militia, congress would leave. he said i am not going to call up the pennsylvania militia. do you think the men of pennsylvania will take up arms against the very army that won us independence? >> congress was forced to convene in new jersey. it was very controversial. . some wanted it in new york.

others wanted it in philadelphia. >> figuring it would not be able to survive without a compromise. -- the union would not be able to survive without a compromise. the location was not the only decision that had to be made. a committee was created to see how large the city should be and how much jurisdiction congress needed over it. like alexander hamilton, who did not want what happened in philadelphia to ever happen again. >> this dates laughed at the committee report that offered exclusive jurisdiction. -- the states left at the committee report that offered exclusive jurisdiction.

in a speech to the general assembly, tom davis spoke about what happened next. >> the political parties could not come to an agreement. imagine that. with the jefferson and his republicans preparing to take control of the presidency in congress, a pervasive action in congress propelled them into action. >> there is no evidence the founding fathers who had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government and decided to only way to represent that was to die representation to fellow citizens. -- was to deny representation to fellow citizens. >> we live in the exact same

position as the american colonists lived. here we have the famous taxation without representation. >> despite these issues, washington, d.c., has become a ofgle u symbol of the strength the federal government. >> the national archives hold some of the nation's most important articles. william randolph spoke about the virginia plan. >> under the virginia plan both houses of congress would be a portion of population. >> the smaller states felt threatened by this plan.

william paterson countered with the new jersey plan. >> on july 1, the convention split 5-5. the delegates appointed a special committee to solve the dispute. >> a compromise that gave state equality in the senate. >> the successful compromise would be known as the great compromise. >> it is one of the more momentous events in our nation's history. >> today we have a political climate equally as challenging as that of the founding fathers with many opposing viewpoints, but we can all agree -- ->> it is imperative that work together to find a compromise. >> legislation is the art of

compromise. >> compromise is not always the best solution. imagine what would have happened if abraham lincoln had compromised the south instead of the civil war. we oftentimes creates unforeseen consequences. compromise is needed in legislature, and oftentimes it will create the best solutions. perhaps it is time for another great compromise. host: over the past two days we have introduced you to this year's top prize winners in this cam competitions. t congratulations. you have one grand prize. you and your family have driven

to washington, d.c., and now you are on television. what you think about this? guest: it is pretty awesome. host: i saw that you have your camera here with you today. guest: i do have it with me. this is the one i for the documentary. host: how did you come about the idea of coming up for your documentary? my family had beenbe planning to go to washington, d.c., even before the topic was announced. when i went on line and saw that it was the topic, i thought it would be perfect to get great footage or whatever else i needed for the documentary. it was after going to washington i decided to look into more on what i could use the history of washington, d.c.

host: why is that? what did you learn that sparked your interest? guest: about washington, d.c., this city? i learned a there are a lot of different circumstances that helped create the city. first of all, when congress was in philadelphia there was a mutiny and they were forced to leave philadelphia and find a new capital. i found that the location was not something i never really thought about how they decided the location. i learned it was created by a compromise between the north and the south. i learned a lot about how the sea was created. -- how d.c. was created. i was really surprised to see how little has changed in the political climate from the days of the founding fathers all the way to today. there was a lot of political maneuvering with once i tried to

pass things as quickly as they could without the other side. there was a lot of using certain situations to their advantage. it was very interesting to see how little has changed in politics since then. host: do you like politics? guest: somewhat. i have always loved history. host: why is that? where does that come from? guest: our family does talk about history and politics a lot more than would seem at usual. -- than would seem usual. host: how did you go about making this documentary? for those that just saw it, they're probably saw the graphics you use and different software. guest: every time i make

something like this i make learn something new. at this time i learned a lot about motion graphics. i put each image you saw on its own track. what i did is key framed these tracks to make the move. i took the images and rendered out the image and you got what you saw on the graphics. host: part of the rules are you have to use c-span footage. how did you use the footage you in the documentary? guest: i spent quite a few hours searching the c-span video library about things like the pennsylvania duty in the great compromise. i searched all of that information on the c-span video library, and a lot of interesting things came up that

i was able to use for my documentary. a lot of that footage dates all the way back to the 1980's. it was very interesting to see how things have changed in the broadcasting world. host: you went pretty deep into the library to find the material you. can you talk about how much time you spent in front of the computer doing this? guest: i found most of my footage for the documentary before i even went to washington to shoot the interviews and shipped on-location shots. it was a major part of my pre- production process. i did spend quite a few hours. i do not remember exactly how many. host: what did your parents say when you said this is the topic i want to do? guest: when i talk about my topic, you kind of have to see it.

it is really hard to explain in a very short amount of time. i kind of told them this is basically how my documentary will work. they said ok. host: we are talking about compromise in washington. and that was the topic of carl's documentary. here joining us at the table is donald ritchie to help us take questions from viewers about this topic. let's begin with the great compromise. why was a call that? guest: when the constitutional convention met one of the differences was between the large states and the small states. the large state the new government should be more representative of the population. small states said no way.

the constitutional convention almost came to an end over that issue. until they formed a committee over the fourth of july weekend in came up with the ultimate compromise, which were two houses of congress. then they wrote a special provision and saidit will lose its equal standing in the senate without its consent. no state would ever give that consent, so the senate will probably remain that senate as long as the u.s. government stance. host: karl talked about the great compromise, and he also gives an example of not willing to compromise on an issue. what struck you about the documentary? guest: i thought was very creative. i particularly like the fact that he use so much of senator speeches.

i think he would have really loved to watch this documentary and like the fact that there was a good portion of his speeches included in it, but he believed in the institution and believed that people had to rise above politics and the motions of the time and did have to reach a compromise. as henry clay said, all legislation is a form of compromise. there are certain moment when we all marched together in the same direction, but for worst of our history there is a lot of continuity. -- but for most of our history there is a lot of continuity. host: has there been a great compromise since the one that is documented? guest: there have been many compromises. among the greatest is the missouri compromise of 1820. the other was the compromise of 1850. both of those dealt with the

issue of new territory that we have incorporated. how with the territory becoming into the union of states? -- how would the territory becoming in to the union of states? they tried at first to divide the nation with a line, the missouri compromise line. above the line there would not be slavery and below if there would be. then we acquired more territory. there were great divisions between the north and south over many issues, slavery being a primary issue. in 1850, henry clay and other senators tried to put together a compromise to avoid a civil war. what they did was they delayed the civil war for about a decade. it was known as one of the great compromises. certainly throughout history there are constant compromises and the senate and house because there are 100 senators and 435

house members. every issue that you want to get past you have to build a coalition of support. -- every issue that you want to get passed you have to build a coalition of support. a good compromise disappoints each side. each side has to swallow something they do not want in order to get something they do want. host: carl talk about this in the documentary as well, but small states. what is the role and what is the impact on that in legislation today? guest: the supreme court said legislative bodies have to be in proportion equally. the only legislative body in the country that that does not apply to is the u.s. senate, because in the unionstate's -- half the population of the united states lives in 10 states.

the other half lives in 40 80tes and the havey have senators. in the house california has 53 representatives. william hayoming has two. that means the small states have a much larger voice in the senate and they do in the house. host: we're talking about the history of compromise. it is the topic of our grand prize winner. we should do the documentary at the beginning of this. if you're interested in watching this again, go to our website. studentcam.org. you can watch all of them there. let's go to florida.

first phone call on this. caller: if good morning, and thank you for taking my call. thank yourning, and for taking my call. i wanted to say congratulations to carl. i just watched his grand prize documentary, and it was fabulous. he really gave me an education. you are never too old to learn. i wanted to call and congratulate him on that. it was a marvelous teaching tool. i hope you continue to make many more. host: tim is a democrat. caller: we need you for president. i really liked that. i just have one question. what was the difference between the emf back then and the emf

now? host: we just lost a phone call. i am not sure what he meant. let's talk about history today in the congress. you mentioned robert byrd. he knew the history of the congress and how it worked. has anyone fill that void? guest: there are a lot of candidates. he was a very unusual senator. he went to law school at night while he was a u.s. senator. he felt because he did not get a formal education as a young man the rest of his life was learning. he continued to read. he got very interested in not only that history but the rules and the presidents of the senate. of thethe presidentence

senate. usually every friday afternoon he would stand up and give some speech about some aspect of the history of the united states senate. these were compiled. almost no one else has matched that kind of devotion to it, but certainly among the senators, especially among the senior senators, people like senator alexander and other people who have been here for a while and to our real institutional list, you often feel in their speeches they will talk about the historical precedents of whatever the issue is today. there is a lot of continuity. if you are debating something today, it is not the first time the debt has been an issue. it is not the first time these issues have come before the senate. some senators have a longer view

and greater historical perspective on it. host: is compromise possible today? guest: the onetime absolutely broke down was the time of the civil war. we looked at what happened in that instance. the confederate states left and lost everything they left for. for one, all of the state senators lost their seats. actually the civil war was at an extremely productive period in terms of american legislature. the emancipation of slavery was something the confederate states have d left the union to avoid, and it wound up suffering. everything they let the floor from was what they wound up

losing. that is why you do need to compromise. host: we will go to john on the line for democrats in michigan. caller: congratulations, carl. if the congress was being developed today, what they're be -- would they do it the same way? what the people be able to represent themselves with internet and telephones and the like? guest: it is very interesting. communications have changed tremendously. that 1880's it took a long time for communications. they would go and spend months at the time for tcapital.

members of every state go home almost every weekend. they are connecting with constituents, and they all have internet sites and web sites and they all tweet. they are constantly communicating. the question is at some point could we avoid representation and have people vote on every particular issue? the issues are so complex and are so fast and furious that it would be hard for the citizens as a whole to pay attention to everything that came along. there would probably be a hard core group of people that would do the leading, and everyone else would wait to see what happened. we are very much dependent on transportation and communication. host: what do you think? do you think politicians today should compromise? guest: i think compromise that we depend on the issue.

some compromises like the impending government shutdown, we needed a compromise otherwise we wouldn't have huge consequences. there are other issues that may come up that would not be a good idea to compromise on. in most cases compromise is definitely necessary to get things done in the house. but there are some exceptions. host: it sounds like you are following this issue, even though you finish your documentary a while ago. guest: yes, definitely. it is very important to me. host: we will go to a calller from ohio. caller: i am calling, because i tould like to ask him have discuss the idea of the unlimited lobbying and unlimited donations that the big corporations are handed out to

our suppose it representatives. the fact that they are now owned by these contributions, and what are we going to do about it? isn't this really distorting the democracy? guest: certainly the lobbyists are a daily part of what goes on on capitol hill. lobbyists are from all different corporations. from large corporations to unions to and our mental groups and others. -- from fundamental groups and others. money talks, and the more money you have, the talk is louder, and that has been an issue from the very beginning. since the 1930's the congress has set requirements that they need to file on the showing who their sponsors are and where their money is going. there were a number of roles in the way finances could

be distributed. congress is still trying to grope with this. that issue is not a new one. it is certainly one that has persisted through much of american history. not to say that lobbyists are pertinacious. they provide information on issues. they also represent groups that have an interest in what ever the legislation comes out. they do not want legislation that will essentially punished one region of the country or one form of industry against another. every piece of legislation that comes up you will hear from all of the groups that are concerned that that legislation will affect them. host: tony, republican. you are next. caller: carl, well done. i really like tell you took me into washington, d.c., with some of the issues. i have a question for you, carl.

i understand with the militia that hamilton somehow got us into debt, which paid for the militia. i understand jefferson had an opposite way of doing it. what was his way, or did you know about that? guest: i do not believe that really came up in my research. guest: alexander hamilton was an economic genius. relieve the beginnings of our country were very much dependent on his decisions that had to do with taxes, a banking issues, the tariff issues. one of his big issues was the united states had to pay off the debt.tion a waary war jefferson believed and a smaller government and opposed this. that was a big issue in terms of

deciding where the federal government would be located. in the sense the south accepted the proposal. the north got the economic program they wanted. tried very hards to reject the debt. there was one moment where they had no debt. there is a brief moment with a pay off the national debt, but national debt has been part of american history since the american revolution. we have only paid for our government through a combination of immediate taxation and long- term debt. host: that brings us to today's headlines in "the washington post." we're talking about compromise today, because that is the subject of the grand prize

winner. calller from new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to congratulate young carl. good job on the technical aspects of what he did. i appreciate the fact that he chose a liberal arts history to bring some items forward. could hoping mr. ritchie a lovely -- could elaborate on some of the issues that came about in the project in the situation that arose after world war i when the veterans were striking outside washington, d.c. guest: very good point. you talked about the mutinied but there was ak then,

moment when thousands of world war i veterans marched on washington, d.c., to demand the bonus they had been promised. it was not due until 1945, but because of the depression they said we will not be alive to collect the funding. president herbert hoover allow the u.s. army to drive the veterans out of washington, d.c. that was one of the contributing factors to his defeat in reelection. president roosevelt when he came in, one of the things his administration proposed was the g.i. bill to take care of veterans. historian said it had an enormous impact in terms of raising the education level of the united states, raising homeownership and establishing a long time of prosperity that follows the second world war. we do learn from our history along the way.

yes, indeed, there have been military difficulties that has played a role in decisions government has made. host: do you get phone calls from senator saying what happened on this issue back then? guest: we do not usually get phone calls from senators on career issues. the one time we did get that was during the presidential impeachment trial when senators were on their way to eat their press conferences or to town meetings, and they realize that questions of a historical missnature was going to come up these days, and we tend to deal a lot more was that and speech writers who are looking for factual information to support issues, and in fact, we provide the same information to both

sides in the debate. the basic factual knowledge of what did we do in the past and what type of responses came out. the senate historical office is much less involved in policy issues the and it is an institutional issues. how the senate as an institution responded to issues. what are the parliamentary procedures? things like that as opposed to what are the details of this particular issue? the congressional research service provides strong factual information on every piece of legislation that congress will deal with. host: vinny on the republican line. caller: i wanted to get a recommendation for the video. there are two books called " and they areurse"

great books on how they had a vision of central banks. host: any thoughts on that? guest: i am really impressed that carl has grasp so much of american history. i hope he will continue in the enormous amount of reading that can be done on these issues. one of the startling statistics to me is that the average college freshman knows more about american history than the average college senior. it is not because colleges have poor history departments, it is because so many students do not take history class is while they are in college. states require a large amount of american history and world history while you are at a high school level. high school students are pretty well informed of what is going on. i wish our college students are required to take more of it,

because there is a rich base of literature to drop from. host: what do you think, would you keep learning about our nation's history? guest: definitely. i think it is very applicable to today'. host: what do you think? will you do this again? guest: probably. every time i do a project like this i learned something new and do something i have never done before. i hope i am able to enter again next year i will have an even better documentary. host: if what did you learn this time around? guest: i had access to a lot better equipment than i did last year. not only did i have more functionality i was able to take advantage of, but it was also able to really use my equipment to the best of my knowledge to create a lot of the motion

graphics, a lot of the audio techniques that reduce and all sorts of things. host: what will you do with a $5,000 to one? guest: i will tithe 10% of it. i will save most of it. the rest will use to upgrade some of my equipment. i will upgrade to a better software. then i will invest in getting decent lighting. host: we think you look great in your documentary. michigan, paul, independent calller. we're talking about compromise in washington. caller: my question is he seems like a go getter. i am curious why there is such a

rift between these parties? could he do a documentary on something that would compromise everyone to be for america? host: are you talking about in today's time? guest: people say is this most political partisan divide in american history? i say no, quite frankly we have always been a partisan nation. it was the coming together on those positions, first the passing of the constitution and then the bill of rights that really changed the constitution. from the very beginning we have had great disagreements. the whigs and the democrats. the wigs of the republicans. that is a form of dynamic tension in the system that has

propelled a lot of ideas, that nobody has a monopoly on the best ideas. that in a sense compromise is forced, because not everyone is an agreement on those issues. no states where there is know disagreements tend to be dictatorships. host: johnny, democratic calller. and caller: i called to congratulate carl, and called to say i watched c-span as often as i can come and i consider it the best ivy league university in the country. i feel like i am back in college for free. i like listening to the different opinions when people call in. i would just like to say continue the good work, and i will continue to pay my cable bill to make sure you stay on the air. you all have a blessed day.

carl, i give a shout out to you. host: thank you. we appreciate that. let's talk about those who talk about compromise. what issues represent a compromise in today's terms? guest: carl made a good point that not always is compromise the best solution. it depends on what issues were. there were politicians who were famous not for compromising, and to set i would rather take nothing rather than half a loaf. you wanted a full loaf on every issue. he wasn't willing to split the difference. that meant a lot of issues he favored were not going to pass. much of what he did want to come about, but not because of him.

he had a very meager legislative record. there are moments where people feel it is the board to draw the line and compromise. if you want to enact something and get something done, you move forward, you usually have to reach some sort of an agreement. the question is how far are you willing to go? how far are you willing to stand on your principal or to relax its? that is a universal issue throughout american history. host: talk more about politics and how it has changed since the great compromise. guest: since the early years there have been some very difficult changes. we had one senator who was beaten with a cane by a member of the house representatives to came over and objected to one of his speeches. fortunately we do not have physical violence in the chamber, but there is great difference on the issues. it is interesting if you watched

c-span today, you hear the senate and house are very polite in the parliamentary language. it is almost 19th century language. that was required by thomas jefferson when he was the presiding officer of the senate. he wrote the first parliamentary rules article. he said they are always going to be heated arguments, and the only way to have a rational solution to these issues is to try to cool down the rhetoric and cool down the behavior, so that senators are not to address each other by name. they are not to criticize each states or motives. there is a force decorum that the senate has upheld in the senate to a large degree as well and have required of their members to try to have a civil debate over issues of which they

feel passionately different. host: how long is the book on decorum and rules for the senate? guest: the senate book of procedures is a very long book. it is well over 1000 pages long. i recall senator byrd standing up and sang every congress he read through the book underlining different sections. i know there are some senators who have never opens the book. they rely on staff and others to tell them what the procedures are. the senate is a governing body. the rules have not changed dramatically over that amount of time. they sit at the desks that they sat at. there is a great sense of connection to their past. unlike the house, which reinvents itself every two

years. the senate is an institution that is based much more on continuity and tradition. that is why so many senators are often interested in the history of the institution in the history of the nation. host: perry, democratic calller in south carolina. caller: the best compromiser was lyndon johnson in my opinion. even in the senate when he was there and became president, it was all because of compromise that we got a lot of the 1960's civil-rights things past. guest: that is a very good point. he to say come let us reason together. he would get us to sit down and figure out what they needed to get them on board. when they were passing the civil-rights act in4,