will outline the budget proposal of the caucus. michael noble that the gop presidential field. -- michael steele. " washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning. it is tuesday, may 17, 2011. thank you for being with us on "washington journal." paul ryan went to barack obama's home town to defend his budget plan, specifically medicare. both parties are testing the political potency of medical reform.

with all that in mind, we are going to ask you about your prescription for medicare. the medicare battle -- what is the best way to reform the system? all people in this city seem to say it is in need of serious financial attention. how do we do it? our line for independents -- on thising to start tuesday morning with the wall street journal, which has a story about medicare. right below it is a poll question. we will share that with you is you start digging about your response as to how best reform medicare.

46% of all adults of jews let people choose a private health plan with the government contributing towards the cost. our question for you is what is the best reform system? what can you live with, medicare's in the years ahead? as you are calling in, it jennifer cornell is on the line. thank you for being with us. you have been watching this debate started by a new gingrich

wt the bridge on sunday. guest: both parties say they recognize medicare is a problem they will have to deal with, but it is how it will solve the problems that they are pretty far apart. ryan putting out the premium support model. democrats at this point have not put a real proposal out there. president obama has put out a plan that republicans say is not detailed enough to truly consider. host: what is the system situation? guest: ryan pointed out yesterday that it is going to go bankrupt in just a couple of years. that has to be dealt with,

republicans say, if you want the programs to continue. all of them say that their model is to preserve the program, and order to preserve it you have to change it. host: the house and senate are in break right now. is this something they're going to be hearing from constituents at home? how will congress be responding to this? guest: they will be putting out a new campaign. they have a whole list of the town halls republicans are hosting back at home. they are encouraging seniors to go out and go to the town halls and put their feet to the fire. they want to, in their words, and medicare. -- end medicare.

i think we will see that in the town halls a lot this week. this is not going away anytime soon, and i think we will be talking about it still. harry reid said he wants the senate to take up the house budget and have to vote on it so we can ensure the senate is talking about this issue as well. the pope has not been scheduled, but it is expected sometime next week. -- the vote has not been scheduled, but it is expected sometime next week. guest: we can expect most republicans to support it, but it put some of them and a very difficult position, because they see what is going to happen. if they vote for the budget they will get the same ads of accusing them of supporting

medicare. they know this budget is not going to pass. boeing what their future holds is a vocal. susan collins will vote no. -- knowing what their future holds is difficult. host: so they will vote to how they feel knowing the outcome. guest: exactly. host: thank you for giving us the political background and some of the policy behind it. guest: thank you. host: jennifer haberkorn as a related story in "politico" this morning.

host: we're going back to the story. we're going to begin your calls. we have some videos to show you this morning of many of the players in this debate. let's begin with a telephone call from powder springs, georgia. eddie is on the phone. good morning. caller: good morning. i am 77 years old. i have worked with the corporation for 44 years. at 64 i signed in for medicare, because at that point the company was no longer our primary as far as entrance was concerned. after that i still work. i pay less than $100 for medicare insurance premium. when i worked i had to pay that

same tax out of peril. -- out of payroll. i had $15 per month taken out of my check for the deductible on the blue cross blue shield insurance. back in 1981 when mr. reagan was president, 10 years of our social security was taken away from us to balance the budget. the young ryan talking about his children and grandchildren, what about we now that our seniors that are fighting the same battle for our children and grandchildren? we at this point do not have coverage, and it does not appear we're court to have coverage. but the one thing that the baffles me is the continuation

entitlements is we do not have it and we're being pushed aside. but we give you an example. -- let me give you an example. i am saying i think of this program was monitored and so much fraud and was sought in the medical field. my mom got a letter from the insurance company asking her how was she managing after her surgery for tumors -- she had never had the surgery? . host: 0 thank you. thank you. "the new york times" tells us

how of medicare beneficiaries live at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, which is $20,800. annual income or a single person is that. and 28,000 for a couple. next, a call from dallas. this is ken it was an independent. good morning. you are on the line. -- this is ken who is an independent. guest caller: this is an incredibly complex issue. it is more like a game. and i listen to paul ryan who says he is going to give citizens over 65 a voucher, but he is not saying how he is going

to control cost when you have to deal with the insurance company. as the rays cost, you will not get any more money on the voucher, so you will have to continue to go into your pocket to fund the issue. the deal is you have to find some way to still provide for everybody, because we are all american citizens. it is constantly the have and have-nots. if you reduce the revenue the government is taking in, you are going to have to reduce every program the government provides. if anybody thinks the government does not need revenue, than that is stupid, because no private enterprise as able been -- has ever been able to provide jobs

for american citizens when you see the large companies. they are improving their productivity by increasing the manufacturing processes, the way they do it with less people. you will still have to -- you cannot be fooled by the games that the republicans are trying to pull. host: david from new jersey. good morning. caller: i am 41-years-old. my wife and i do pretty well, and when we retire, we should have a pretty good asset. my brother is two years to agree that meet. -- younger than me. get by.well to i think the ryan plan is a good start, but i think it goes too

far with the fixed archer. -- voucher. i think this will hurt people that cannot afford -- to work or to be on fixed income. using the tiered approach for people have lower incomes, pay less, and people like myself who have more money will pay more i think is appropriate. i do agree with the reform, but i think the ryan plan goes too far in its current form. congressmanhear ryan defending his plan in chicago. >> the president's plan begins with trillions of dollars in higher taxes.

this would disrupt the lives or inthose were currently retirement. host: here is the headline in this morning's "washington post." next is alexandria, and virginia. next is a democrat on the air. caller: i am more of an american than democrats. i am 46-years-old. host: what are your thoughts about medicare? caller: my father is a college

professor. 79-years old. he teaches at northern virginia community college. he has heart disease. they charge him flight 49 polls $400. -- they charge him like $400 for 9 pills. i did not know the guy was so articulate. puppet masters pulling the strings in my opinion. the cbo projected his medicare budget will raise senior medicare cost up to

$6,000. by $6,000. another thing is the deal president obama made with the incoming republicans about tax cuts is it came to $800 billion, which is like the upper 2% income bracket. package,ooked at ryan's just to save the taxes for the puppet masters that poll congress's strings so they do not pay their taxes, it adds up

to what he is trying to take away from seniors, tried to take away from teachers, trying take away from social services. congressman ryan and the people the republican party usually protect, they were born rich. host: i want to add two things based on your comments. does that the calller suggested, the congressional budget office has said the right and we will drive up health-care costs for older americans in the future. but on twitter bill gatey gives us the demographics. he says -- mentionedr also

president obama. let's listen to him at a town hall meeting last week. >> what we propose is continue to make the system smarter by reducing the cost. the republican proposal is to basically just say we're only going to pay this much. we're going to create a voucher system for medicare. here is the amount of money you get, and of health care costs keep going up, that is your problem. it is estimated that will cause an additional $6,000 per person. again, if the choice is between me getting a to enter thousand dollar tax break or 33 of you folks who eventually or your parents or grandparents having to pay $6,000 more for medicare, i know the choices i am born to be making. i would rather make sure i am carrying some of the sacrifice so that our security is what the seniors over the long-term.

-- is with the seniors over tehe long-term. does notyan's people thilan affect people 55 and older. there is no plan on the democrat side. obama does not have a plan. he says he does, but he does not. this is just ridiculous the way ryan is being demonized. democrats are just flat out lying. host: next, an independent on the air. caller: good morning.

i am 51-year special. i'm a veteran. my father is a veteran. -- i am 51-years-old. i want to see my father taking care of. i realize this system needs change, but the way the people are talking about it makes no sense to me. host: you said you were how old? caller: 51. host: if it ever passed, you would be affected by whatever changes made, but your father is not. caller: correct. i approve of that. our good times are over. the roosevelt good times are over. we have to go through a change. it is not the way he to be back in the 1930's.

used to not the way it to b the 1930's. host: let me give you history on the medicare program. host: what is the best reform

for medicare? but as our question for you this morning. our next call is from mississippi. republican, go ahead. caller: i would like to remind the public exactly how medicare works. i work in the medical field, and i see the check that the doctors receive. people do not understand when they see the charges that these doctors bill to medicare how little they get paid. there are doctors to work quitting the practice because they cannot meet their overhead. medicare is very difficult to deal, and very complicated. it requires so many people, so many new electronic systems to bill it. they have so many roles. it is just becoming non- profitable for a lot of doctors. -- they have so many rules.

there are some doctors who are just crooks, just like in any other profession. but the majority of the doctors are having a very hard time paying their bills. the truth is with the reforms that a lot of doctors are not going to be practicing, so the wait time to see a doctor is going to be enormous. also, i do not understand why the media never mentions the medicaid. edic when you work in the medical field you see it day in and day out, all the people that are on medicaid who are financially able to have their own insurance, but the use medicaid so they can have a better lifestyle of their spending. people better think about this long and hard, just how bad and

how quickly they want to see a doctor, becaus we will not have as many in the long run. caller: i would agree to a point that there has to be improvement in medicare, but i think it is important that we address this issue. the republicans basically have created a scam with the budget thing. we're not broke, people. we are not broke. we're the richest country in the world. what they are doing is basically finding a way to protect people that have money now. this is what this is about.

they do not want to raise any taxes. they want to protect those who have the money now. in 30 years all of america's wealth and prosperity have gone to the wealthiest businesses. no one seems to be listening. that is where our prosperity has gone. we have the wealth. they are just trying to protect this, because they know health care is going up. unless we can get the profit out of it, it will continue to rise. those who have profited over the past 30 years and keep what they have. host: similar theme by this tweeter

look at the clip from " meet the press" that started this debate on sunday appeared newt gingrich brought this all to a public debate. here is some of the comments. >> i do not think right-wing social engineering is that it were desirable than left-wing social engineering. i think we need a national conversation to get to a better medicare system with more choices for seniors, but there are specific things you can do. at the center for help transformation we published a book called "stop paying the crooks." we pay between 7100 $20 billion

per year to crooks. year to 200 billion per crooks. i think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better outcomes, not one where you impose this. host: here is how the editorial page sees his remarks. gingrich the house, gop, a drop dead. we are asking a question of you this morning of how best to reform medicare. let's listen to bay city, mich., next. this is jim.

88-years-old. you have been on medicare for two decades now. caller: we have been listening to you since you started with c- span. we really like you. you have a 2000 page plan. nancy pelosi says you have to read it before you know what is in it. i was listening to ryan, and i think he makes a lot of sense. the way things are going, it is born to be sad. thank you very much. -- is going to be sad. host: 4 worth, texas. been set on the line. -- fort worth, texas.

caller: in listening to the representatives last night and earlier this morning where he is talking about the bureaucrats making health care plan, i find what he asking knows about his job. and looking at all angles of the situation goes mainly bureaucrats would only telling the legislation as it is written. i do believe this scenario that

the president is presenting isut the right and plyan plan probably right on cue. the standard of living is going to have to go down. there are more people, and people want more. everybody wants everything they see. we have been in two wars that are unfunded. i just want to say that everybody needs to be taken care of, and it will be done one day. thank you. t: from twitter --

let's listen more to paul ryan yesterday in chicago before the chicago economic club. >> our budget makes no changes for those near or in retirement. it offers future generations and strengthen medicare program they can count on with guaranteed coverage options. thus help for the wealthy and more for the poor and the sick. there is widespread bipartisan agreement that the open-ended fee-for-service structure of medicare is a key driver of health care cost inflation. ask any hospital executive, and they will tell you the same thing as my friend likes to say, medicare is not a trained being pulled along by the engine of rising costs, medicare is the engine, and the rest of us are getting taken for a ride. this disagreement is not really about the problem, it is about the solution to controlling costs and medicare. if i could sum up the

disagreement and a couple of sentences, i would say this. our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to an efficient providers. [applause] their plan is quite the opposite. it is to give the government the power to deny care to cinders -- seniors. host: sam from clearwater, florida. what are your thoughts on medicare? caller: i would blueprint the va system. that would provide a central place. i utilize the va. i get great care from them. it will loosen up the doctor's office. they would not have to have so many support people doing

paperwork, it said rep. they could really put a team to the others that would concentrate on medicine. >> i get heads up from the va whenever there is something going around, bird flew, have the suicide rates for veterans. they will get in touch with me and not pester me, but gently nudge me to make sure i get taken care of. they concentrate on preventive medicine. i am very happy with the service i get from them. they do not use all delayed as medications. why do we have to respond to the ads that we see on the nightly news when we can use something that has been out there for 50 or 60 years?

host: amherst, ohio. the key is 61. -- vicki is 61. caller: my comment is why doesn't medicare contract and negotiate for medications the way the be a does? one of the largest cause affiliated with medicare is people's medications. here under the bush administration they took that ability completely away. the veterans have it. the people in medicare did not. they are buying medications instead of buying in bulk where they have the ability to negotiate.

that just does not make sense. my second comment regarding health care reform is that if every politician had the same coverage our seniors have, maybe they would be a little more attentive to the cost affiliated with that. host: appreciate your call. .hank you appeared i yesterday it was the day the federal government officially hit the debt limit. nancy pelosi was on cnbc asking about the debt problems. here is the question and answer about medicare. >> one of the first things we should do is reverse the medicare giveaway to the prescription drug industry that was done in the bush years spirit of this congressional budget office says the three biggest contributors to the

deficit are underpaid wars, a tax cut to the wealthiest people in america, and the medicare part b prescription drug bill. we should subject every federal dollar to this. host: new tupelos yesterday on cnbc. -- nancy pelosi on cnbc yesterday. caller: thank you. i have watched for years and years. i am so supportive of congressman ryan for getting this issue out and speaking about it. i think it is critical. i'm very happy about that. i am disappointed that newt gingrich slammed him over the weekend. i think that is very disappointing.

i would like to make a comment about another issue. i am 62 and not on medicare. i paid for my own insurance, and i have a wonderful general practitioner that does not take any medicare people, because the doctor is not reimbursed adequately for the effort she put in. i pay cash to her. i put a discount because they do not file any insurance papers. -- i get a discount because they do not file any insurance papers. the government is going to force people to do it their way. i think it is so un-american.

very disappointing. i am so glad congressman brian is bringing it to the point of discussion. -- ryan is bringing it to the point of discussion. host: we want to show you how this is being in the congressional election in new york. it was on the front page of "the washington post." let's play the ads. >> kathy hockel, a false campaign about the position on medicare. >> everything should be on the table. entitlements, defense spending, but also revenue. cuts to medicare, cuts to social security, and higher taxes. and i jane corwin

approve this message. >> you have earned it. work your core life for it. -- worked your whole life for it. jane corwin supports a budget that essentially ends medicare. we just cannot afford jack davis or jane corwin. host: in "the washington post" story -- the democrats have also created a web site. here is what the front page looks like.

house republicans' budget subsidized millionaires, of course, and oil companies but ends medicare. big oil subsidies, tax cuts for millionaires and tax breaks for of shoring companies tallied 172 billion. in fact your telephone calls. this is antioch, california. patricia, independent. how old are you? caller: i am 60. the way to improve medicare is to go with dennis [inaudible] plan. if we all pay into it, everyone can be taken care of. right now as far as doctors opting out of medicare, doctors would go out of business without medicare. there are maybe one or two that can afford to exist without

medicare. hospitals would close without medicare, without the medical insurance program. i am 60 so i am not included as part of this new ryan plan, but i have concerns for other people. my mother is on medicare right now, and she pays $100 per month out of personal security for medicare. i pay for medicare now. you are entitled to medicare because you pay for it. doctors are not going to quit. i would rather have a six-month wait for a medical service than to not be eligible period. for it to be to the point where i do not have an insurance program, because i am over 60 with medical issues, the $6,000

would not pay for a medical program. you have a six-month wait just for a physical anyway, but if you have a life-threatening situation, you would not have that way. and people without insurance right now would be happy to have a six-month wait. the latest our locarticle in "politico." also, talking about newt gingrich. he called for more spending on alzheimer's research. here is the story.

next is the intent, north carolina. this is willie, a republican. and caller: good morning. one way they could reform medicare is go back to debates, and bring it back to the point that we are supposed to do from the start. medicare has came to be accepted now. medicare was not set up for that. it is not going to take care of

that. when you have to reform something, you have to go back, find out what you made, and then start dealing with it. unless they deal with it that way, you can get medicare. host: thank you. monte tweets -- from west virginia. thomas is a democrat there. thomas is 57. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i am a permanently disabled paraplegic from in the line of duty. i have sent to dear john letters from two of my doctors because they were moving to more costly offices, and they have been

medicare patients.car these are doctors that have been concerned about my health care for years. all the sudden i am not one of their patients anymore. when i think paul ryan is practicing is euthanasia and against senior citizens. host: let me understand your interpretation of it. this program would essentially give you medicare money to spend as you would. caller: that is a falsehood, because there is no way the money they are proposing to want to give the disabled senior citizens of america would even start to make it possible for us to maintain medical care.

it is just throwing out a treat. the republican plan is euthanasia. host: you have lost your favorite doctors in the chrysostom, so what is the right direction? caller: richard medicare to what it was, and quit chipping away at the poor and lower class in america. -- return on medicare to what it was. i put 23 years in to protect and serve. i did not ask who they were or what their income was when i put my life on the line for them. i find it is heartening and totally irresponsible that the republicans party agenda is euthanasia in america. host: why are you under the medicare system as opposed to be gay? opposed to the va?

caller: 187 officers are hit in the line of duty every day in america. once you go through the system, you only have your insurance for a year if you opt to pay for it. then after that you have to file for medicare. host: thank you for your call this morning. from the front pages, but favorite subject is dominique strauss-kahn, the head of the imf that has been charged with sexual assault of a made in new york. want to show you the photographs this morning. this is "the financial times." i am much cheap denied a $1 million bail. $1 imf chief denie $1 bd

million bail. this is "the wall street journal." we're talking about medicare this morning. here is a tweet from john in north carolina who writes us -- another north carolina call. larry is a republican and 52- years-old. the morning. caller: good morning. my comment is this, the republicans are making a mistake. they are taking their eyes off of jobs and unemployment to talk about medicare and medicaid.

there are falling right into democrats' plan. they're taking their eye off the real problem. what i have to say about medicare. i am disabled. i have been disabled for six years. i personally think medicare is a great thing. i get 80% coverage, which is really good insurance. then we would both be covered 100%. the system has its good. insurance companies are falling all over themselves to cover seniors if they're only getting 6000. insurance companies are still want to cover them.

i have a shot, because i have arthritis real bad. i have a shot that cost $1,500 for that once a week. that is extremely expensive. they need to start looking at drugs and the cost of drugs, even generics are like $300. drugs are just outrageous. doctors are starting to deny. i was that my doctor -- me jump in at that point talking about the cost of drugs and doctors who are adding that to their prescriptions. i want to get a couple more articles in. we will be taking this to the top of the hour. congressman don edwards will be our guest later on. we will have the former head of the republican party, michael steele, to talk about the presidential politics that have gone on in the past few days. times."t"the new york

similar on a national scale, " usa today." we can show the headline on that what we are taking our next call from paris, arkansas. frank is 62 and an independent. caller: good morning. what a pleasure it is to see you. quick points. i have been on medicare for 10

years now. my arthritis pain medication gave me a massive heart attack 12 years ago. health care in america has become a nightmare, susan. this fatal drug interaction. i would like to reassure you, there is an alternative to this. the wonderful alternative is go gtrees. there is a wonderful alternative to this. the number one cause of death is our current american medical system. we can rise above that. there is an alternative. gogtrees.com. host: thank you for the call. mylah tweets us --

next is a call from florida. this is john who is a republican there. good morning, john. 64, is that right? caller: correct. host: what you think about medicare reform? caller: i do not believe they put enough emphasis on medicare. three years ago i went on medicare due to a heart problem i have got. at the time, my doctors wanted me to get a machine and an oxygen concentrator. the oxygen concentrator and the portable tanks, i have only them

one time, and the company that supplies them to me, i do not know how much they cost, but i get a bill for the concentrators for $20 per month. i get a bill for the canisters, the portable canisters for $4 per month. host: if you are not using them? your prescription is go after the waste and fraud and the system? caller: that is correct. every time i talk to these people they tell me if i refuse, if i turn them back in, then if i need them at a later point, then i probably cannot get them. host: thank you, sir. another political story involving a sex scandal. here it is this morning. l.a. times" has this

exclusive way this morning. it says here the world and continue to work for the child, and the child even lived in the complex. the governor is suggesting here that -- the governor is asking for concern for his family and says that he took financial responsibility from the child for the start and continue to provide for the child according to a source that refuse to be identified because of the governor's request for privacy. the next call is from kansas city, missouri. barbara who is 66. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was calling partly to respond to a lady that called earlier that was 62 and said she had great insurance and was not

concerned about medicare. i would like for her to know that when she turned 65 her insurance company will not be her primary insurance anymore, whether she likes it or not. that is what happened to me. i had great insurance, but when i turned 65 my insurance company kicked me off because they knew it was cord to be much higher, and they did not want to cover me anymore. -- because they knew it was going to be much higher, and they did not want to cover me anymore. no insurance company wants to cover all people, because they know it will cost more. if you are like me who is a rich federal employee as everyone thinks i must be because i retired from the federal government, my $1,400 per month is not going to pick up the slack from that voucher. they were concerned about obama's plan kicking granny,

pulling the plug on grammy. this about your plan is what will pull the plug on granteny. i would like to say that when you fall into the trap of listening to the republicans that are only concerned about themselves, come in like another gentleman that called said tried to make sure the rich people continue to be rich and that everything is taken out of the backs of the poor or the people who can least afford it, that is the trap that we're falling into. nobody that has the wherewithal to take care of themselves wants to do anything for anyone else. host: we have to go at that

point. thank you. you are our last voice in the first discussion. our next guest represent a high percentage of federal workers in the prince george's county suburbs of washington, d.c. we will talk with her about the progressive caucuses plan for balancing the budget over time and reducing the federal debt responsibilities. we will be right back with her. tv"his weekend on an"book live with all others on the bp oil spill, india, and the middle east. plus, a panel discussion on the book industry.

former ambassador to yemen. on afterwards, but rick camp on one of the most significant standoffs of the cold war era, at the berlin wall. if the schedules do i -- get directly toe e-mail you. >> i am new gingrich, and i am announcing my candidacy for president of the united states. >> follow the candidates announcements and speeches on the road to the white house and look back of their careers on line with the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share with everything we of covered since 1987. what you want, when you want. the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, on line, and

social media networking sites. find are content anytime 3 c- span video library. we take our content on the road with our c-span bus. bringing resources to your community, washington your way, the c-span network. now available in more than 1 million homes. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to have donna edwards visit the "washington journal" this morning. you have a high percentage of federal workers in your district. guest: i do. host: they are in the news because the treasury secretary yesterday tapped into the fund to extend the debt until august. i was reading this morning is that they are going to be fine but it is a ready source of funds until we reach the end of

the road and the end of the debt limit debate this summer. how do you feel about a compromise on the debt ceiling? guest: we have to increase the debt ceiling. the united states has to meet its obligations. we need to pay our bills and extend the absolute deadline that we have to reach until august. it is required to be paid back under law so that is a good thing for federal retirees. i think it is important thing for us to do to continue to meet their obligations and reduce our debt and deficits and making sure that we pay our bills. host: he went overseas to see our troops over a mother's day. guest: i did. i travel to afghanistan.

two fold. one is to see so many of our service women who are serving to have children and they are away from them for 12 months to 15 months. also, to visit with afghan women and to see the progress that african women are making. i went to a school with young girls who were attending school for the first time. almost 2500 of them in a small community. that tells us there is some good and is being done on the ground. i still have the those questions about the large footprint that we have in afghanistan which is connected to the reason that we have these ballooning deficits. host: you are a supporter of the progressive budget caucus plan which has, "ending overseas

contingent operations." i am wondering about this plan overall and how you think it does a different job than some of the other proposals on capitol hill of addressing the country's debt problem. guest: one of the things that the progressive caucus budget does is put in perspective about where our real spending problems are. we also have to look revenue as well. for example, ending the tax breaks that were extended for those with the highest income levels. right now, we are having a discussion about medicare at the same time we are preserving tax breaks for oil and gas companies which of the progressive budget

eliminates. we have a defense budget that is way out of line for what our proportionate needs really are for security and defense. i think the progressive budget brings those things in line that have been off the table as far as this discussion. host: one of the other provisions is to tax capital gains as ordinary income. when we are trying to spur capital growth in the country, how would this affect the burgeoning recovery? guest: i think people who are putting their money into the economy -- we need more folks putting their money into the economy. we have a lot of folks old and on to capitol when it should be coming out into the economy. there is a lot of paper trading at the close on, so people who

are not making real money off of investments but not really making money because we are making things. for example, i supported increasing research and development tax credits and extending manufacturing tax credits and those kind of things that spur people to put money into the economy. a modest tax on capital gains, to me, makes sense. host: you can call us, send us an e-mail, or send us a twitter message if you have a question or comment for representative don edwards. our time is a little bit shorter than anticipated because of the crazy washington traffic. we had a discussion about medicare. we are picking up on the debate between newt gingrich and paul ryan this week. what is the right approach to

medicare with both sides saying some reform is necessary? guest: the democrats started on the task of making medicare more efficient, extending the solvency of medicare and we have seen the benefits with the obama administration really beginning to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. tightening up payments so that, for example, you are awarding preventive care coverage so you are not tapping into these systems as much. i think there is room for discussion about how you can afford medicare. the problem that i have with the ryan budget is that it effectively ends medicare and gives people vouchers to go into the marketplace to negotiate with big insurance companies.

the health-care system will not give our seniors a break if they have to tap into that market. host: william is from new york, a democrat. good morning and welcome. caller: good morning. to congresswoman edwards, i think what we need to understand is the way we have been looking at this budget is wrong. we need to separate the budgets back in two separate funds and then see what the operating budget holds. we need to raise taxes. we have to get away from these supply-side tax cut nonsense. when trust funds were first formed, they were kept separate. a ruling by the supreme court in 1960 allowed the trust funds

[unintelligible] budget.he unified in 1963, a commission was put in place and taxes were increased by 50%. income taxes were cut on the supply-side tax cuts. ever since then, of operating budget has stolen money out of the trust funds. 1985, we have our first day ceiling which in those days was a no-no. instead of putting into the trust fund's securities there could be sold on the market, they started putting in iou's. we need to separate -- we have to stop playing this game with the pea and acorn, moving money around. we have to show the operating budget owes 2.5 $56 trillion to

social security. make sure that the republicans cannot keep cutting taxes. host: thank you for your call. guest: i think there is something to those comments, and it sounds like she knows a lot more about budgeting practices then i do. i will say that one thing that troubles me is that in this discussion of reducing the deficit and cutting taxes, we have not had a conversation about how we raise revenue in this country even if we were to go back to the tax rate that was in place when ronald reagan was president, and i thought that was fairly draconian. we would be raising more revenue today. i think this is a two-part

conversation, and i do think we should not be borrowing from trust funds in order to pay our bills, though we have to take some things off of our books that should have not been them on the first place. that is where we go back to iraq, afghanistan, tax breaks for oil companies that are making millions and millions of dollars in profits. those things will go a long way to shoring up a troubled system right now. host: in the washington post this week -- would you support any revisiting

of retirement? guest: one of the things that we have to stop doing is believing that somehow we can fix our debt and deficit problems of the back of federal workers. federal workers are already under the constraints of two consecutive years of pay freezes. there is a shared sacrifice across the economy, but let's really share it across the economy. i want to see us go to some other things before we tap into the federal retirement system. i think we run the risk that we are not going to have a skilled workforce that we need by continuing with these measures that i believe go after federal workers at the expense of looking at the rest of the budget and the economy. host: there is a news article about how vote you were one of 16 members that voted for it a

proposal. guest: it is a rather consistent one. for many years, we had taken this question of pay increases or not for congress and for federal employees off the political table. i thought this was a calculated move to bring it back into politics. what i do believe is across the board for all of our federal work force it is important to maintain a system in which pay raises can be kept up with the cost of living, and whether you gs5, it would be the same across the board. i think the economy has gone through many different challenges and changes. i might make a completely different decision about that

today. it is consistent with my philosophy. host: the next call comes from panama city, florida. good morning, john. you are on the. caller: hi, how are you? in the type of doctor system for medicare would not work at all -- and the type of adulteress system for medicare will not work at all -- any type of voucher system for medicare will not work at all. this does not make sense. in the budgetary system as far as federal workers, why i am sure the congress woman can make more than a gs3 or a gs4. i believe it was the senate that voted themselves the 20% pay raise that did pass. there was, in the past two

years, a federal worker raise because i know a federal worker who got a raise. i do not know where she got her information but it seems to be incorrect. guest: federal workers have been under a two-year pay freeze. that debt commission recommended a three-year pay freeze for our federal workers. i am not worried about me. i think you are right, john, that members of congress make more than a decent income. i am more worried about the gs3, -5, or -9 workers struggling to provide for their families. i look at it this way. some people have said the federal system is overly generous on pensions and benefits. what i look at is a r private-

sector and i wonder why hasn't our private sector kept up with the need of our workforce, both for pensions and benefits? it is one of the reasons i supported health care reform because i believe that so many people who work for a living deserve the ability to have health care coverage for themselves and for their families. we should not be pushing down the american worker. we should be raising up the american worker and make sure all of our workers have the ability to take care of themselves and their families. host: the progressive caucus in congress calls their budget the people's budget. you couldn't find a copy of it on line. -- you can find a copy of it online. more on that?

guest: i think that is true. we have seen news reports about folks who moved their assets outside of the united states in order to avoid taxes but still enjoy the privilege and the benefit of doing business here in the united states. at the same time, i think it is important for us to incentivize those who want to do research and development here in the united states and to manufacture products in the united states and enjoy the benefits of what it means to develop a great corporation here in this country. i think the progress of budget brings that to philosophy in line with our tax policy. host: the next caller is from gary, indiana, an independent. caller: the intent was to pay the money back into social

security. with the state of the economy right now, how do they intend to pay back the money they are talking about borrowing from the federal workers' pension fund? it is a game of smoke and mirrors. you use a credit card to pay off another credit card. it will not be solved by that. they will have to -- the politicians are going to have to take some cuts just like the american people are taking cuts. i think if we all work together, we can bring this thing in balance. guest: number one, we have to do it because the united states has to meet its obligations. it is also true that in looking at this we cannot play cat and mouse or a game of chicken with this debt ceiling. it really is a problem for us if we default on their obligations.

i think secretary gartner has done what he needs to do in this very interim measure to make sure that as politicians we have the ability and the time to get this deal right. i do not want to wake up on august 1 and say oh my gosh we have to finish this by august 2. host: c-span junkie tweets us -- guest: i do not agree with that. we spend a good part of 20 years in this country beating up on the government in saying that the government cannot do anything right. i do not think that is true. the debate that we are having now is one that has been in this country for a couple hundred years, about the relative role of government and not in our lives. i think there is an appropriate

goal for the government. it is why, for example, when we look at health care reform, we said what it is the rules that the government can play in order to provide real meaningful health care to the american people? we passed that as being implemented -- and it is being implemented now, and think that is a good thing. i don't think there is anyone that would argue that the federal government does not have aftere to play after natural disasters in our country. we have to protect the safety net for people who work for 11. it is why i am a strong supporter of medicare and social security and the things that are going to make this country great. host: the next call is from ben.

good morning. caller: i heard the e-mail about the government not having any money. the government does not have money. they take it from the people. when the government get into it, they miss it up and we get only a little bit of it back. i am 75 years old. i have seen the system work. they take money out of everything and spend it on their projects. my point is the fact that boeing has set up a plan, spend $2 billion in south carolina where they need jobs. they will move overseas. that is when the government will come in and arbitrarily messes up the system. thanks. guest: -we always have to visit

what it is that government should and should not be doing. what i say is we need to incentivize companies like boeing and others to manufacture here in the united states to create jobs so people have resources to take care of their families and they also contribute to the public role by paying taxes. i want to see the fairness and restored to r-texas them. i do not think it makes sense for brocade secretary to have more of a tax liability than he does -- i do not think it makes secretary bill gates' to have more of a tax liability than he does. this is about accountability. we have to have a system where the government is accountable for its successes and failures. host: the next call is from west virginia. good morning, laurie.

guest: i cannot get online to see what the progressive caucus has to say. a support this caucus. -- i support this caucus. we would not be having a discussion on medicare if people could not buy into medicare. also, the value of work. you know, if a person is cleaning in a hospital, they are every bit as important as the doctor but there is no living wage for that person. we have to start looking at what is a living wage. also, i have to say -- my husband has been laid off for two years. he has worked for 30 years since

he was 17 years old at one job, and he was the first one of laid off. there was nothing we could do about it. now he cannot get a job because he is overqualified which means we cannot pay you the amount of money they do deserve. his health is going down. if they go to the 55 like in the ryan plan, we have already depleted most of our savings and things, and the next thing we do is get into our 401k. we are not ones that were in this housing mess. we owed about $14,000 on our house. you know, we have done all the right things, and right now, every time i cut something out of our budget, gas prices go up. i am having to continually

readjust my budget, our food budget, everything, to try to just stay ahead. host: what crisfield was your husband in it? -- what a field was your husband in it? caller: he was a machinist. host: good luck to your family. guest: people who work hard and have worked hard, not just for one or two years, but for decades and then they find themselves unemployed at a time that is in between their working years and their retirement years -- it is why, for example, i support extending unemployment competition and long-term benefits for unemployment and retraining for workers so they can come back into a growing economy. it is also why we support things in our progressive budget increasing grants for low-income young people to be able to go to

college so they can come into the of economy and become taxpayers so their children will not need student assistance. one of the things that our progress the budget does is we are going to make an investment in the american people and not just reward people who are taking money out of our economy. host: carl allen takes issue on the discussion about government retirement funds and writes --

guest: just as a reminder, i went to school in mexico. our service women got a pay raise is that they rightly deserve and earned. i think it is actually important to reward a public service and to value public-service. if there are places where there are federal resources that serbian wasted -- that are being wasted, or being taken advantage of, we have to take that out. for example, i really love what we have done with the small business administration, looking at where jobs are created amongst small businesses and making sure the federal government supplies them support for those of entrepreneurs who are creating jobs in this economy. there are places where the government is doing good work, and those employees should be

rewarded. it also means that the private sector begins to come in line in terms of the benefits and pensions. it is just not fair for that some corporations are making millions and millions for their shareholders. that is great because they are making an investment and it is important, but some of that has to be returned to the public good. host: ezra climate from the washington post is frequently on chat shows on msnbnc. he has written a column. for example, he writes --

what do you think will be the future of your proposal? guest: i think it is important to inject these ideas separable into the debate and into the conversation. our collective concerned about how we manage our federal resources, managed taxpayer resources for the benefit of the public. i look forward to injecting that

debate when it comes to health care and when it comes to our tax structure and when it comes to saying are we going to reward those who are continuing to be rewarded at the highest income spectrum or are we going to look to make sure we provide some benefits and stability for working families. i think it is important for us to inject these ideas into the debate. we are covering every agency of the federal government. we cannot take every hit into the labor, health, and human services sector without taking a look at the others. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about something i did not hear anybody talking about. why don't they give china a $14 trillion and squashed the

deficit and everybody can go back living their life doing what they are doing? why don't they give china a $14 trillion in debt? host: where would we get it from? caller: if china calls and their dead now, what would we do? we would be slaves. sell rhode island, sell texas. what is $14 trillion in american land? host: with the country do if china called on its debt? guest: we are in a global economy and that think there is frankly no incentive for china to call its debt. i do not think that is really part of the conversation, but we have to have a discussion about the relationship with china and what kind of economy we are going to create for the 21st

century. are we going to be the inventors, creators, and builders? i like when a couple of the callers referred to government intervention. i think the intervention we have done with the auto sector has helped to revise the american auto industry. we need to figure out other ways to rebuild our economy in the 21st century so we are developing, designing, and manufacturing products and jobs in this country. the rebuilding our infrastructure. there was an article on the front page of the washington post about our crumbling infrastructure. that would be good investments to make. host: our last call from you is rom pittsburgh comeback ric, rn independent. caller: thank you for letting me share my thoughts. i am a retired marine.

i think the biggest thing is getting the career politicians out of the senate, of congress, " term limits on them, and make them live by the laws that they pass for us. there was a comment made about whenever there is abuse on funds and money and stuff like that, we should go after it and stop that. how many billionaires are in congress? you know? it is not right. they have to be on the same page that we are on the. guest: i was just going to say that i actually agree with you in large measure. i am one of the members of congress that is not a billionaire or a millionaire. i am one of the poorest members of congress because i work for a

living like a lot of members do who work really hard. i will say that i think you hit on something when you talk about the need for us to live under the same laws that we put others under. i agree with that. i spend a lot of time as a nonprofit advocate before i came to congress. i think it is important for us to live under the highest ethical standards like the rest of the country has to do when we go to work every day. i think it is important for us to be mindful that we are the keepers of taxpayer dollars and that is important for us to spend them wisely to make investments for the benefit of the larger community. i have never really believed on term limits because i think your vote is the way to limit our terms. i have not been in congress very

long, but the fully expect that the people in the fourth congressional district if they figure out i am not doing the job that they want, they will make a change. host: here is a small photograph from usa today. i am going to give you the opportunity because you sit on a committee in congress. what are your thoughts about that final mission? guest: is both sad and exciting. i think the science on that mission is exciting. my colleague gabrielle giffords got to watch the launch of space shuttle endeavor as it took off. i am looking forward to her return and also looking forward to figuring out what that next step is in space. i have been a long reliever and supporter of our space program.

host: thank you for being here this morning. we are going to take a break and get an update from c-span radio. let me tell you what is coming up. in a couple of minutes, michael steele will be our guest. after that, we continue our series of looking more deeply into the department of homeless security. we will be right back. >> a nato helicopter has attacked the pakistani army post near the afghan border and injured two soldiers. senator john kerry wrapped up meetings with some of the country's leaders in islamabad. this morning, the committee holds a hearing. you can hear it at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. president obama is preparing his

speech on the events in the middle east and u.s. policy in the region, the white house announcing that it will take place thursday. turning to capitol hill, the house is out this week but the senate is in session. a after herbert kohl announced he will not seek another term, word from politico that the former wisconsin governor and u.s. secretary of health and human services plans to run for that seat. the senate gavels in thirs morning. those are some of the headlines. >> this weekend -- slave revolt,est india, and the middle east.

plus a panel discussion on the book industry. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> item newt gingrich, and i am announcing my candidacy for the president of the nine states because i believe we can return america to hope and opportunity. >> follow the candidates announcements and speeches on their road to the white house and look back at their careers online at the c-span3 video library. -- at the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: michael steele is our guest. i saw this headline in

"politico." is that true? guest: i do. i like newt very much. i like tim pawlenty. unlike in number of the guys who are thinking about running for the -- i like a number of the guys who are thinking about running for the presidency. we have seen that i think it is important within the party right now to have these conversations. host: we have spent the first part of our morning this morning talking about the shake-up over the weekend. a lot of house republicans and others are on happy. guest: i watched newt gingrich respond to that since that interview. most recently, i guess this morning in the wall street journal where he talked about it. you can quibble with the words

or whatever, and i understand that, but i think the reality is he was trying to say there is a broad range of approaches to our budget problems and that neither the right nor the left will be able to move with the american people. that part of the debate -- like everything in washington, and the least little thing makes the most noise. right now, a lot of folks are committing their counteground ge together. a lot of the folks stirring up a cockfight about what newt gingrich said, a year ago they were saying that the ryan plan was not their plan. a lot changes as these things unfold and the debate begins. i think it is all along that

road of identifying, for republicans at least, what you're going to be some of the major themes which are going to talk about over the next 18 months and how we convince the american people to fire the president of the united states and higher our nominee, because that is what we are talking about. host: there were two stores in the washington post. he is doing a swing through iowa right now. write below this, marital challenges -- what are your thoughts on this election? with the state of the country, americans may be less interested in personal biographies. guest: i think peggy is exactly

right. i do not think people give a rat's behind about these issues when unemployment is at 9%. i think that is what is driving right now. there will be stories and a lot of folks will want to stir that pot, thinking that something will stick. i don't think so. i think americans see if these guys as very human and very much a part of the life cycle of the community. they have highs, lows, good days, bad days, marital problems. the big question is can you govern? can you help our economy grow? when you put in place policies that will allow us to move the country forward? host: will that be true even within the christian

conservatives in the republican party? guest: the christian conservative pays taxes and christians to get divorced. if the bible says let he without sin cast the first down -- if we want to elevate our elected officials to an unrealistic standard, fine. but be careful when you get there because you will have people that do not reflect the rhythms. of life's the help define the leadership, the policies. they are not anachronous or out of step. they are very much in the main when it comes to what is going out here in america. host: we have been focusing so far on the presidential race but there are also big contests for

the senate, and the democrats are saying the house of republicans is competitive. you can send us a phone call, a tweet, or an e-mail. what are you doing these days? guest: i have enjoyed being able to look at the world a little bit differently and see it to a different set of prisons. i am hoping to get back on tv soon -- prisms. i am hoping to get back on tv soon and commentate on the economy. i am doing some work with friends and new york, going back to my days as a corporate finance lawyer. i am doing some consulting work and enjoying the moment. the last two years was a whirlwind. i inherited a party that was pretty much out there in the desert, not being able to win

elections, raise money, or organized to be competitive. we took a lot of risks. over the course of two years, we brought $192 million, kicked up 600 elected officers around the country. positioning and repositioning the party was successful and a lot of fun, but it was draining. it was a lot. now is the chance to step back as we get ready for the 2012 cycle and look where the party is and what the party is prepared to do to sustain the success from 2010 as it moves into the next cycle. the democrats, independents, and the voters out there are a absorbing a lot of information.

they are putting out a lot of signals. the question is can this party adapt to a new political environment, which is not defined. host: after you finish your tenure as the party head, there were some morning-after stores with headlines such as these -- this washington post story suggests that finances and depleted bank account -- what is your story? guest: that was true for every committee in washington. tell me of a committee that did not have a lot of debt or spend the dollars they needed to spend it to win. the members took a vote on their budget, on the spending, and on a line of credit. i was not a member. i was like the ceo of a company that was brought into and told what to do.

and we did. most importantly, we won. when we got our heads handed to us, haley barbour left the rnc with $10 million of debt. you all remember what 1997 was like. that was that reality. my reality was the committee took out the lines of credit, i was not crazy about it. i like to spend money i do not have, but the executive committee approved a those budgets and wanted to spend that money. if you give me the resources, we will do what we need to do. we won. now with the 63 house members coming in, and the congressional races, and gubernatorial races, the party will be in the position to raise the dollars to move forward. one of the things i said was the

political dynamics have changed. there was a headline the other day in "politico" talking about the relevance of party committees going into future cycles because of rulings like mccain feingold. infrastructure has changed. you have the three current members of the republican national committee forming a super pac. where are they going to get that money from? that is the new reality for the dnc, the rnc, at the national level that they are going to have to live with. we try to anticipate as much aof that as poosible and put in some new mechanism. we put in mechanisms at the

ground level, working with the state parties, to allow them to enhance their ability to raise money directly. there was a lot of dynamics that were not reported in the washington papers, funds that continue the-of going after the rnc. i kept my discipline and focus. host: we are talking with michael steele. here is a photograph of up donald trump in the post this morning. their paper is asking what can his exit teach the rest of the gop? also, $10 million a day for mitt romney yesterday. he raised that much after bringing together his network of wealthy donors. let's talk about politics. let's begin with conn. charles is a republican.

caller: good morning, susan. i would just like to maybe make a suggestion -- not a suggestion. a lot of politicians do not listen to suggestions. instead, i will make it an observation. i am not really satisfied with any of the people running on the supposed republican ticket so far. i think newt gingrich is probably the most intelligent of all of them, but he has a package. mitt romney is a great businessman. i think it is helping to drag him down. what my observation is i would like to see all of the republicans to come together as much as possible to get the strongest draft they could possibly get.

senator tom coburn -- i think he is probably the most direct, natural, and the most convincing. guest: charles makes an interesting point, and i have heard this quite a bit over the last six or so months about the emerging field and more broadly about the republican leadership. i got criticized because i am a direct -- i speak to mind. i am not going to sit here and do the talking points. my staff used to go nuts because i do not do talking points. that is what leadership is expected to do honestly with people. two things and that charles said strikes me. direct and convincing. look me in the eye and tell me directly when you are going to do. do not sugarcoat it. convince me that your vision,

your policy, your direction is something worth fighting for. that is what people are looking for. it is what, obama brought to the table in 2008, a freshness of what he was saying and how he said it. he has become aloof and sitting back and letting things unfold without directly leading. what makes paul ryan stand out right now is he has put something on the table and said this is the vision, this is the plan. we can talk about the details of it and whether it will pass, but brother speaking, what appeals to people is the directness of the approach. taking on entitlements, the status quo, defense spending -- those are the types of things that the leadership is looking for. donald trump -- what clicked for him initially was the

directness. it resonated because he was willing to be direct and convince people, at least on this or that issue, that this is how he wanted to go. i think charles makes a good point and is something i am waiting to see emerge after we get ready for the debate to see where these leaders come out on this question of being a direct and convincing. say what about newt gingrich. that is what i appreciate about what newt gingrich says. host: this tweet -- we will let that stand as a comment. next is a river field, florida. caller: i just wanted to say

that i did not understand -- when you first came on, you said that you liked newt gingrich. for the past few days, he has been making comments which were racial in tone, and not to mention he cheated on his wife. his intelligence should put him on a level or a plateau of both gop members because a lot of the gop members that are now candidates do not really actually fit the criteria of being the president of the united states at this time. we have newt gingrich, one of your colleagues in the gop -- this guy is constantly throwing daggers at mr. president obama for no apparent reason but just to gain some political atmosphere. host: i want to ask you a question. he suggested that newt gingrich

has been making comments recently with racial overtones. what is an example? caller: he spent of president obama's kenya race. we all know from donald trump and everything that president obama is an american. but yet, still, he would refer back to his heritage, his ancestry. this right there is definitely a racial issue. host: that was not in the past two days. guest: it is very different from what dwayne is talking about. i think that is going to be something that the presidential candidates and the nominees will ultimately have to deal with and put into context. the racial overtones and

undertones that will be a part of this campaign, a part of this discussion, solely because barack obama is an african american. in the 2008, what i saw was a party hesitant to engage on policy because of the tone of being perceived as somehow racial. when you are talking about taxes or spending, you know, you are focused on specific issues and ideas that should hopefully move you away from any instances of race. white people, black people, hispanic people -- everyone pays taxes. host: while we are talking about demographics, an article in the wall street journal --

guest: yes, it is a problem. it is sometimes ignorant when addressing issues like immigration and issues that are important to the hispanic community. it has been out of step and out of joint with the concerns of african americans and out of joint with the concerns that white americans have on issues. of those broad issues that touch people with a live, how they live their lives, how to run their businesses -- i think the party has now a chance to really define a new landscape and a new relationship. we cannot look at the immigration issue through a very

closed prism. we have to look at it very more broadly. the main argument is that this is about border security, but it is also equally about the aspirations of individuals who want to be a part of this american family and make this their home. we now have a responsibility to help them do that the right way. host: houston, hello mike. caller: i think one of the biggest items on the 2012 presidential -- it would be the appealing of obamacare. one thing we never hear president obama talk about is what obamacare does to doctors. doctors will reduce their hours and retire early. they will have their hands strapped behind them just to provide services that are under approval of the obamacare cost

guidelines. it is a regulatory board that tells the doctors they will not get reimbursed properly if they offer certain services. that is rationing. the other point that was going to make is i hope that c-span considers inviting dr. milton wolf out of chicago as a guest to the program. he is a second cousin to barack obama and he is a vociferously opposed to obamacare, but you will never see him on nbc news ever. guest: you make an interesting point. i think mike really drools down further than what we have in this debate -- drills down further on this debate about health care. a lot of folks in and this is have been on insurance companies and on trial lawyers. but not so much on how doctors

will go about delivering this new system of health care. my sister is a pediatrician. i remember going to a discussion with her and watching the hair on her head stand up when she realized there was no incentive for her to stay in practice or make the commitment to her patients because the cost on her side of it whether insurance- driven is going to be too great. the impact on doctors will ultimately be consolidation in the medical field, and it will be some doctors who decide to leave and retire early. that is going to have a long- term impact on the delivery of this health-care systems. a lot of those doctors will get so consumed in the government's system and in effect will become government doctors. i do not know if that is something that the american people are prepared for.

host: how is the decision to put everyone on the same plane could affect this decision? guest: i think what the governor is going to do, knowing him as they do, he is going to sit back and listen to these candidates. he has a he has a network of organizations that anyone would love to have. i think he will be more interested in the role of king maker as opposed to being the king. host: georgia, independent, chris. caller: good morning. i have a few comments to make. first about obamacare. i am disabled.

i cannot afford to pay my medicare premium. yous people think that' -- can afford to pay the fine. going back to the old days with prisons. the budget deficit. congress is making over $100,000 a year. gas is $4 a gallon. starts taxing the rich more than the middle class -- start taxing the rich. those are my comments for the day. guest: i think central to this election will be the economy and the economics. i think ancillary to that point

is going to be the issue of health care, because of the costs. his health care premium even on medicare and medicaid is a problem for him. he has to get to the doctor which means he has to put gas in the car. that is a problem. whether you're looking at a budgetary process or through how we begin to redistribute the burden is part of the challenge that the hill has to face. yesterday with the number, $14.3 trillion. the debate is whether we raise that number so we do what -- raise more money. that is a real sticking point, regardless of your political affiliation. the bottom line is the same -- i

have to pay my obligations. the burden is being shifted onto my back in the middle class. and someone, whether the president or the republican nominee will get the support of those voters and win in november. host: the president has a substantial war chest. his personal popularity ratings are high even though people are not happy with the way he has handled the economy. what is the road map to gop success? guest: i wrote a piece yesterday and that is how i ended it. about 60% approval overall. 7% of people are likely to reelect the president even though 57% say they don't like the way he handled the economy.

that is the form but going into 2012. a republican candidate has to figure out how to carve out that room. i do not know what that pathway is yet. the discussion about the economy will be a driver. it goes back to the first caller, the issue of being direct and convincing. not trying to out-obama obama. not trying to be cooler than he is, but connecting with people and laying out a vision. and sticking to that vision. when the barbs come from the right and left, stayed the course. that will be the beginnings of the pathway. that is what i am waiting to see. host: is the president direct and convincing? guest: for a lot of people, he

is. i would like to see more and understand more of the philosophy behind the policy so that the policy makes sense. like libya and not the sudan if your standard is what you claimed to be for libya, why afghanistan and not iraq? those types of things need clarification. whether or not the people will hold the president to that standard, i think remains to be seen. before the republicans, you have to define and you have to be clear, because people think they know the president. he has been to six years, three years in office. from their perspective, we know about the president, so tell us what we do not know, and that will be the conversation. host: baltimore city, md.

caller: hello, mr. steele. thank you for all the work you have done. guest: thank you. caller: have you thought about running against barbara mikulski? it would be nice for someone to give her a little fight, try to get her out. she's so entrenched. it is pitiful. i am a long, lonely republican in baltimore. guest: the senate run in 2006 was very special for me. i was the lieutenant governmor at the time. been current is up in 2012 -- been cordoned -- ben cardin is

up in 2012. the republicans will regain their footing and i've talked about the leadership about how we have positions the party to take advantage of the wind that we did have. over 40 seats were won by republicans in the state of maryland. there are some good signs that the party is emerging and having a platform going into the next election cycle. host: do the democrats have an opportunity to retake the house? guest: that is a good question. i think that practically speaking, the numbers worked against them, number one. their focus is going to be to try to keep the senate. the real play is they have more seats up then the republicans

do. you have centers that are retiring, -- you have senators that are retiring. the challenge will be greater for them there. the republicans will do well with the leadership of an error kantor and john boehner and paul ryan -- of and eric cantor. i do not think brian will run -- ll run. think ryan wiil his fight is in the congress, charging ahead on fiscal issues. that is just my gut of what i've seen and heard about paul. right now the republicans in the house, particularly with the tea party support, love to be true to that support in order to keep the house going into 2012.

host: speaking of the tea party, james asks a question by twitter. guest: ooh, james, smart question. some unlucky tim pawlenty will have a strong appeal. newt could have that kind of appeal. everybody is waiting -- the folks here on the hill and the rnc under haley barbour's control will lauwant to sidebar with someone like mitch daniels. a right now, they are waiting and seeing what these guys are going to say and do nothing slick the budget and how strong they are gong to be when it comes to spending and what is their vision?

what part of the ryan plan to they support? -- do they support? where will they take the country? this is not a favorite sport for a lot of activists. i think we're seeing the end to that. who picks up a mantel with a stronger fiscal message that is stronger to our core principles, that we are waiting to see. host: 5 more minutes with michael steele. guest: good morning, kay. caller: i did not know pediatrician's dealt much with medicare, michael. some historical perspective. before the great depression, all the republicans' policy -- we have the 25% tax rate, would get

40% of the population below the poverty line. we have the supreme court striking down child labor laws and minimal wage. we got a 10-year depression at of that -- out of that. there was one republican administration and during that time, the country grew into the sole economic superpower in the world. from 1968 to the present day, we have had five conservative administrations, and look where we are? but we moved away from our liberal values. that is when the country fell into fiscal problems. guest: to start with, pediatricians do not deal with

medicare. the deal with medicaid for the poor. for parents who may use medicare, i don't know what the reference is to. kay and i will philosophically disagree. to your first point about the boom, world war ii kind of did that. put america back to work and to build the machinery for the war. you are right but in that mix, president kennedy cut taxes. he was a fiscal hawk, if you will. i think that's the ebb and flow are at play here. do administration have an

impact? sure, they do. how they manage those issues is important. say what you want about the reagan years. there was a boom. the clinton years, a continuation of the reagan fiscal policies in terms of spending were also important because a republican congress on the new gingrich's leadership at the time worked to get those things done. when you look at the reagan years, if you looked at the clinton years, what you notice? for clinton, he had nude degrees. ronald reagan had tip o'neill. barack obama has not had that kind of relationship where after everything, they get together about how to move the country forward.

that is something that is worth it to have happene.l in those examples, they helped create the kind of balanced budgets in the clinton years and the economy that we saw. host: mr. steele has signed up to be a columnist for the root. his first column is, "america, we need to talk about the de bt." jack. caller: i love hearing your comments. there is a republican problem and that is dr. ron paul. i do not know why we keep ignoring this man. he has been there for over 27 years. consistent. no scandals.

he is on the welfare plan. this is his third time running. who else do you have to pick from? guest: you made a couple of good points. ron paul does have a residence out there. it is a committed to following. they gather steam every year. look what he has said. it is all coming true. talk about the economic downward pressure on the economy, the role of the fed, the role of the federal government. there is a lot to take away from what congressman paul said. i think between his entry and newt gingrich's entry, there'll be enough intellectual stimulation on these types of

matters. governor pawlenty will bring a wealth of experience of someone who was served in and executive term and has dealt with these problems on that level. that is going to be an important dynamic for the party as it sets the courts for 2012. from that group will emerge someone that will show a directness and furnace and a commitment in a convincing way to the american people that will allow us to have a tough choice to make in 2012. my view is the republicans should win but i am biased. host: michael steele, thank you. we have the latest news update from c-span radio. the we continue our series at looking at homeland security

department said. we will be right back. >> the commerce department reported that construction of new homes fell over 10% -- 10.5% in april. less than half the number economists consider the sign of a healthy market. millions of foreclosures continue to affect the housing market. an update on dominique strauss, -- dominique strauss kahn. he should think about another line of work to protect the reputation of the international monetary fund. bail inng held without new york at rikers island in an alleged attack on a hotel maid. over the past year, at least 16

members of congress have launched their own iphone applications. most display news, st. youtube videos, and allow one-click access to social media sites. harry reid's app even allows users to donate to the nevada democrats campaign fund. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> you are watching c-span. every morning, it is "washington journal," connected with policymakers and journalists. weekdays watched live coverage of the u.s. house. supreme court oral arguments. you can see our signature interview programs on the weekends. you can also watch our

programming anytime at c- span.org. it is all searchable and art c- span video library. c-span, washington your way. >> this weekend, the gaithersburg book festival, live with authors about the universe, america's largest slave revolt, india, and the middle east. plus a panel discussion on the book industry. one of the most significant standoffs of the cold war era, the berlin wall. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. sign up for our book tv alerts. >> i am new congress -- i'm newt

gingrich. >> fall the announcements and speeches on their road to the white house. look back at their careers online with the c-span video library -- follow the announcements and speeches. follow c-span's "washington journal" on twitter. links to video clips. youran also tweet questions to guests. store your account today -- start your account today. host: we're looking at the homeland security operation. tomorrow we will get critical

infrastructure -- water and things of that nature. thursday we will look at border technology. friday will take the topic of by terrorism. -- bio terrorism. if you were to see flow chart of the department homeland security, use the various boxes and there is an office, the office of civil rights and civil liberties. that is our focus to date as to talk about the office and the issues involved. our guest is sahar aziz, the former senior policy advisor at the office of civil rights and civil liberties. what is the overall purpose of the office? guest: i want to thank you for inviting me and the covering this office. it covers a major role and

preserves our american values and civil rights. the general mandate of the office is to ensure that dhs policies and here to civil rights laws and protect civil liberties. we insure that they are part of the conversation went existing ones are being reviewed, to insure there is protection of civil rights and civil liberties. that is their role in the agency, which think is an important role. host: while those discussions are going on, what are the questions and what are the things that need to be addressed when the work of security is worked and preserving those civil-rights and civil liberties as part of that? guest: it depends on the contacts. -- it depends on the context.

the coast guard is under dhs. the conversation will depend on a particular job. in the immigration context, concerns often arrive as to whether racial profiling or ethnic profiling is part of -- is going on when it comes to determining which were placed to raid or how immigration enforcement is being drafted and enforced. the office for civil rights will make sure there isn't ethnicity, gender, are not the basis for drafting immigration enforcement strategy. that is based on immigration law. another context is bordered seizures and question. right now, there have been some concerns expressed that when american citizens are coming

through the border from out of the country, they are being asked how often they pray. they are asked which mosque they go to. so the role of the office is to ensure that that is not happening. and if it is, to promulgate policies that prohibit that. that exposes the agency to litigation. host: for those that were being interviewed, is this a random type of selection? was it because there was a name on a less? -- on a list? guest: there have been reports that individuals have been asked these questions. i would refer the listeners to the aclu's report and others. you'll find all the details if you google that.

norman there are data bases that are being used by customs and border patrol agents who were then told that the stain is on a list or warrants secondary screening and there is some concern that there is a question that is included in the bell -- in the data base that imposed upon first amendment- protected activity. there isn't very much transparency with regard to the public's perspective. it is hard to tell. the agency could say, we do not do that. members of the public will complaint that that is happening. part of the office's role is to get to the bottom of that and find out the truth. agent?t a rogue ask this person how often they pray. if that is the case, that needs to be fixed.

that should not be there. as opposed to, where digital? what is your identity? -- as opposed to, where did you go? host: if i was asked those kinds of questions, do i file some kind of complaint directly with your office? guest: there is a complaint process which is available on the web site. you can do it formally. or there is an informal process where you can submit a letter or some form of an e-mail. that is supposed to trigger the process and give them the hook, the jurisdictional coke to investigate a specific matter. there has been some concern as to the transparency of that process. in the past, when the complainant would receive a letter about the investigation,

it was a very terse and opaque letter that said, thank you very much, we have looked into it and the matter is now closed. there have been some concerns as to a lack of information that is being provided to the complainant and to ensure that the problem has been addressed. my understanding is that the new leadership that has been in the office has taken that issue head on because there have been many people who love to express those concerns over the past quarter or five years. host: the new leadership has the title of officer. it could issue a report to? guest: she reports to secretary napolitano. she is one of many people to report to secretary napolitano, which think is a structural issue.

some not express concern. i think there is perhaps best 15 or 16 separate leaders within the department of homeland security the report directly to the secretary. sometimes that creates competition for attention and makes it difficult for many of the to get the ear of secretary. she should report to the secretary because one would hope that would give for a level of independence that she needs in order to do her job, which frankly can make you the most unpopular person in the room. in a country where many believe -- we have become a colorblind society or as close as we like to be. when you're the person saying, we might have a problem, the might be someone who is acting in a way that could be racist or bigoted. most people don't like to hear

that, especially if they are your colleagues. it is not an easy job. they have their work cut out for them. it is important that the person reports directly to the secretary. the secretary has to give the officer the support that he or she needs within the agency to welcome those challenges when the have to go to tsa or ice and say, we need to find out if you guys are engaging in conduct that is violating people's civil rights. that is not often a welcome statement. host: our guest is with us until 10:00 a.m. she served as a senior policy adviser from 2008 until 2009. if you want to ask her questions, you can call 202-737- 0001 for republicans.

202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independents. journal@c-span.org is the e- mail. first call for sahar aziz on the democrat's line from texas. caller: good morning. is due process a civil rights? guest: yes, it is. caller: then my comment is that, due process is being obstructed by entrenched of structures in the system. they have saturated the system where there is no legitimate investigation going on. there is no legitimate enforcement of laws and procedures. i think that that is accepted. i think it is realize. this is one of the reasons why you have the justification of

saying that it is uncomfortable. there is an insult. you are not hired to be comfortable. there has been a consistency in mistakes in oops and whenever you want to use to justify due process not been achieved. guest: that was a good question. let's talk about due process because it is a broad term. it use the means you have a right to know what you'd have been accused of. it gives you the right to rebut the allegations and to try to -- and to provide evidence in your defense. you could be hurt by a neutral arbiter. it gives you -- you could be heard by a neutral arbiter.

due process is a broad term that is used to cover the different contexts. the role of the office is to be somewhat of a watchdog within the agency. i think there has been some discussion as to whether it to be more independent, similar to the inspector general office. they have done a remarkable job in the past eight years under the bush and obama administrations. investigating the specific policies to determine whether they are in fact following the laws and regulations that provide them with the authority to act. there were some reports about the abuse of national security letters by the fbi, some problems with immigration

enforcement -- not immigration, but some intelligence collections and whether there was improper basis for gathering the intelligence. there have been critical reports that were helpful to the department of justice to let it know what is going on, let leadership know, but to it in a constructive way because the job of somewhat like the inspector general is to make sure the agency is in compliance. the leadership agrees on the principles. i think the devil is in the details. it is difficult to enforce when you have pressure from the hill and the public. it is no easy feat. they have an important role to play and an obligation to fulfil that role. host: john from california.

caller: i find it interesting that you presuppose that those who are in the department of homeland security are incapable of making policy that does not make -- that does not violate the others' civil-rights. these people somehow cannot do without this oversight. this whole discussion about oversight is a per view of the site. this is completely unnecessary. this department should not exist. you have americans in their and they go to the courts. this is just a waste. guest: unfortunate, it is not that simple. it is expensive to go to the courts. you need enough money to hire an

attorney and to do the investigation. i think the courts are wonderful avenue for the check and balance. it has its pros and its cons. if you can be more preemptive, if you can be less reactionary and more proactive in side, then you can minimize the risk of litigation, which is costly for both parties and for society. going to court has its own macro costs. if you can do that, then it is a much more efficient process. going to question that you assume dhs personnel cannot adhere to civil-rights, i think the question is that there are a lot lost on the books that people are supposed to follow and they do not always fall them because they are not always informed or don't think they are

very important. often these are individuals. sometimes you'll have an entire office or group but that is rare. somebody has to make sure there is oversight. you have to believe that oversight as a general matter is a good process for governance. i personally think it is. if you looked -- we have a whole administrative law practice that is about keeping resolution of disputes rather than overwhelming the course with every single dispute. part of it is an efficiency issue. i do take note of your concern. if it is not doing its job, it is a waste of money. if it is doing its job, i think is an important job. it is not the panacea and the

solution to everything. host: how many people in the office generally? guest: 99 employees and about 10 contract staff. every year they get additional funding. i did not know about this year. my best guess is 1 110 to 115 -- my best guess is 110 to 115. the office for civil rights doesn't just deal with policies and programs, but also equal employment opportunity complaints. half of the office or 55% focuses on discrimination complaints by dhs employees against their supervisors, alleging they have been discriminated in the workplace. that is a big job, 230,000

employees they have to work with. host: new jersey, independent line. tammy, are you there? one more time. let's go to joseph in houston, texas. caller: i like to ask about a conference that the speaker put on atu.t. law school if years back. i was wondering why is it a problem for army lawyers to attend a legal conference when they are not in uniform? it is a civilian conference. i am an army officer and i regularly attend these causes and i don't wear my uniform. i only where it went is a

military-sponsored conference. i was wondering why there is a concern about that. host: that is too specific for our conversation. caller: good morning. she was talking about due process of law. the due process of law is like almost a slap in the face because child-support and marxist loss and there are laws against men in this country and men don't have no rights when it comes to child support. we also must start bringing back on the forefront and set the precedent as far as child- support. is the feminist movement -- host: we will leave it there. part of the operation involves

resolving these cases. what is being done as far as our reach? -- as far as outreach? guest: to co-author and speak to the communities that they seek to support or work with. the immigrant communities of certification minority communities that are impacted by the policies. communities that may have a larger percentage of english proficiency and they may not be fluent in ienglish. so the office will go out and send the employees to meet with these community groups to understand their situation, to get information about specific grievances and educate them about how they can file a complaint. information is exchanged.

this should inform policy at the highest level. those stakeholders, because they have something to say that is important. this practice is not working in accordance with your policy. or the policy needs to change and it is perhaps because you do not understand how things are happening on the ground. this is a useful method of sharing information. the government of those citizens. i think there has been some concern and it has been documented that some of the outreach programs have become susceptible to becoming more public relations event as opposed to more substantive meetings where they will inform change policy for the better. i think it is an important process. but there has been some concerns as to whether the

people that are cast it as our rich have the authority within the agency to communicate those grievances that they are getting all the way up to the highest level. those who do our reach needy ear of the officer saw all that information is useful and it does not turn into a 1-way venting session. i have been in numerous out reach events both within the agency and also as a stakeholder as an advocate. some of them have been very helpful, especially in informant the office of about behavior of the agencies of those divisions within dhs that they may have been aware of. it is hard to know what is going on at every single airport and every single detention center. these stakeholders maximize the office's ability to get the

information that it needs. then the question becomes, is that information being used effectively on the inside to maximize the use of the office? i cannot answer that. i am not on the inside. host: our guest served as a policy adviser for the office of civil-rights from 2008 until 2009. that is our topic. san jose, california. nancy on our republican line. ca caller: the president spoke with eric holder as it will not investigates any attacks on the defense of marriage act, we will not investigate any complaints

that comment against that. this is a lot in america on due process. internal memos showing african- americans -- eric holder has stated in memos that in the department of justice -- what a joke that is -- they will not investigate any black on white voter fraud. host: what is the question for our guest? caller: there is no due process any more. he is doing away with eigit. guest: i don't have any comment about the defense of marriage act and the eternal -- and the attorney general under pressure. there is no statutory deadline, which think is another problem.

i believe the office aims to adjudicate each complaint within six months, although the record has shown it takes much longer. some complaints need much longer than six months because they are very complicated and they require investigation that is lengthy. but generally there is no legal deadline. there is nothing that forces the office to finish within a year or thinned to this year's -- within two years. do you focus on a case by case or run trends of practices? it is the difference between trying to spooned water out of the ocean with a spoon or trying something that is more effective. with immigration detention issues, there have been many

complaints of lack of adequate medical attention to detainees, causing some to die or becoming ill on necessarily -- un necessarily. a better way to make use of the office is to address the problem across the country rather than just in one specific immigration detention center or related to just one specific person so that you don't end up -- it is and inefficient process. this is something that was communicated years ago by many stakeholders. the new leadership is trying to address it that way. it is a paradigm shift. "keep my numbers down so i don't have too many complaints."

or is it to try to make some major fixes which decreases the volume of complaints and increases the number of beneficiaries from one policy change. host: springfield, west virginia. caller: how much of your time is spent on the detainees that we now have? and why if you are so i guess expedient is the word i'm looking for, why haven't we heard about more of these people that we now hold coming to trial as instead of supporting them, keeping them year after year in the prison

which we as taxpayers are paying for? and i will now hang up and take the answer off air. guest: thank you for that question. immigration proceedings are not criminal proceedings. they do not go to trial in the sense that they are in a federal court where they are charged with a crime. it is and administrative process. many of them are processed quite quickly. there is voluntary departure. that process does happen. there are people who are forced to leave the country very quickly and sometimes without the due process that they would like. they were getting married to a u.s. citizen -- there are a lot

different -- immigration is a complex area of law. it is not accurate to say they cannot speak. when you called someone, when you take away their liberty, we have the obligation to provide them with constitutional rights such as adequate medical treatment and they have a right to food and water and to shelter that is decent. we have taken with their liberty and put them in a detention center. the offices role is making sure that when authority is exercised, it is exercised in accordance with civil-rights and civil liberties. regardless what your view is on immigration, i think that we can

all agree that we as a country value treating humans with these is a, particularly when we take for their liberties. host: republican line from pennsylvania. caller: i would like to pose a broad question about civil rights. i would like to give it a case scenario. 47% people say no federal income taxes at all. they generally get most of the benefits that flow of washington, d.c. taxation without representation -- how you define so rights -- doesn't less mean better? host: tell the question to your office detailer the question to

your office -- tailor the question to your office. guest: you are talking about constitutional rights, a right to privacy, etc. i think you're talking more about a policy issue about immigration. that is beyond the purview of the offices are alrole. host: if someone comes across the border -- guest: there are statistics on the website which is very new attitude commend the new leadership for that. there was very little information on the website about the office if you years ago. it is great that there is a breakdown. they have about 200 complaints that are pending at this point.

from border searches, immigration detention, racial profiling. i cannot tell from their statistics which is more -- they are categorized generally. based on my work, the government -- there are still some concerns with regard -- are you being selected for secondary screening at an airport because of the way you looked, or is it because of a valid security concerns? an example would become the middle of the summer and somebody is wearing a bulky coat. you should be secondarily screened for that. that is suspicious. or someone is sweating

profusely. it does not matter what your race or religion is. those are the types of issues that will come up in that context. there's a lot of concern with some of the policies such as secure communities. secure committees is a project where everyone who is arrested in local and state jails, they are fingerprinted and the fingerprints are sent to immigration service's i s or to ice. in some ways, some people may say, why not? we should find out if they are legal or not. if you got arrested based on profiling because of local police officer didn't have the authority to check your status, they will find -- send your

fingerprints to ice and they will find out if your legal or not. that is a runaround. latinos have been disproportionately impacted. there has been a concern by advocacy groups. if the public in general feels that local police in enforcing immigration law, they will be more hesitant to call police when there is crime. they are afraid that that will open increased scrutinies of their lives. maybe they are illegal but perhaps -- they are willing, perhaps i should not call the local police because i do not want to cause problems for myself or my family.

we're then less safe. those are some of the issues groups have brought. you need to talk to the leadership. we don't think -- it needs to be reformed. there is a way that fingerprints are sent only when someone is charged with a crime, not just arrested. or that is later in the process to insure that the committee is not being used as a run around racial profiling guideline or prohibition. host: atlanta, georgia. caller: you are my favorite host. you are cool. talk about the zero presses -- the oppressors.

my question is, my theory is, how many home owners and security personnel indebted personnel indebted-- are embedded in misrepresenting themselves? there was a lady who mentioned that's people, americans on the watch list -- if their civil rights are being violated, they cannot tell the person why. they don't have civil-rights if they are on the watch list. they cannot tell a person why they can have the process. my daughter's medical privacy was violated when a lady from her school was calling my doctor

and giving all this information on the phone. i filed a complaint. the evidence was there. host: we have to leave it there. guest: she mentioned the watch list issue. that is an important issue. the watch list has burgeoned to millions of people. there have been reports of ms. identification and people being stopped when they were not supposed to be stopped for a secondary screening. there have been many documented mistakes and ms. identifications. the office for civil rights is one of those places where people will write and say, every single time i go to an airport, i'm always secondarily screened. my suitcases are search and

checked and i'm constantly harassed. some of them feel harassed. they are convinced that they are on a watch list and they want to question that. that is part of the process. that process has yet to be addressed adequately. will happen is they will send them to the trip. i believe it is under the tsa. they are known to be very understaffed. they are inundated with complaints. the usual take a year to 18 months to get a response that is not very opaque and very vague. people continue to experience the harassment. the watch list issue is something that needs to be

fakixed. if people are not supposed to be on that list, you're wasting the time of agents. there needs to be -- the system for getting on the watch list needs to be fixed. it should be somewhat transparent. the public will be well served if the process was focused on and reform. host: las vegas is next. caller: i have a question -- it says homeland security and civil rights on your screen right now. civil-rights -- why do illegals have civil rights? i have been to mexico. i have been to mexico.