congressman who was a member of the house armed services committee and he will look at defense spending and war powers. and we will talk about the cost of eliminating tax credits. "washington journal" taking your phone calls starting at 7:00 eastern every morning on c- span. ♪ host: the house foreign affairs committee will be debating whether congress must legally sanctioned further operations in libya. the issue may go to the house floor where lawmakers continue their work on the annual defense authorization bill. we will carry that for you live here on c-span. code to c-span.org. also in washington, politicos is stand with tim geithner to talk about a possible government at

all. that will be live on c-span2. the peterson foundation holds a summit for america's future. it features former president bill clinton. we will have coverage at 9:15 a.m. on c-span 3. by members of a group of senators known as the gang of six will discuss their work to develop a bipartisan plan to create long-term financial responsibility. many of those senators have yet to be interviewed. overseas, president obama and michelle obama continued their state visit of england. the president will address both houses of the british parliament can meet privately with david cameron. look for our coverage of those events at c-span.org. on the "washington journal," we want to get your take from the "wall street journal" front-page headline. should public schools charge fees?

the telephone numbers are on the screen. let me read from the store. public schools across the country struggling with funding, rising personnel costs, are seeking cost to as students and parents by boosting fees from everything from enrolling in honors english to riding the bus. at high schools in several states, it could cause more than $200 just to walk into the door, thanks to registration fees --

is this good public policy? we want to hear from you. democrats, republicans, and

independents. a lengthy piece from the "wall street journal" about schools are charging fees for extras and some basic parts of education. if you're a teacher or administrator, we want to hear from you. back to the article. personnel costs amount to about 80% of expenses in many districts.

large additional cuts are on the table this fiscal year. in many states, california, texas, and district after district has eliminated or cut enrichment programs for gifted students, help for struggling readers, advanced math and science classes, foreign language, trauma, and sports. some of tried asking residents to approve higher taxes only to be shot down at the polls. these are the only way to stave off even more drastic cuts. willie is our first caller, a democrat from annapolis. caller: i do not like the situation. i think our education should never be a prize. for public education. the idea of the pending money on public education is not a good idea. host: what about the budget shortfalls in states like maryland, adding to fill -- they have the huge budget deficit.

they have to come up with solutions. some parents would rather pay for this than have the programs eliminated. caller: i can sympathize with the parents who would rather pay for it. but the problem is, if we're going to make any sacrifices, it should be for our children. for your little girl, what background may come from, i think our public education should be what it is -- public education. three public education. host: some have charged for the boss, that sort of thing. should they charge parents for transportation? caller: i do not think so. because of our public education, it should be what it is -- public education. the reason why we are still behind in different programs, i think education should be our first priority. host: would go to an independent in texas. you are on the air. caller: i think it is totally

ridiculous. the people in texas need to look back at the 1990's when ross perot spent his own money. host: what you mean by that? caller: he tried to figure out what was wrong with the educational system in the state of texas and the nation. people did not listen to him. there are a lot of things. let's tax churches. how does that sound? that sounds about as ridiculous as public education. it is totally ridiculous. host: we go to a democratic collar and new jersey. go-ahead. caller: there would not be a problem with public education give governors were not dipping into the funds to give vouchers to parents to pay for private schools and religious schools. that is my comment. host: bellingham, washington, cathy, the republican line.

caller: think the government has no business being in this business of education. i think that we should -- if we're going to fund education, we should do it privately. but the government has no business in education. it's the communist manifesto. host: everyone should pay for their education. caller: if the government wants to pay for it, fine. but they should not be in the business of. host: i am not following you. caller: the government should not be educating our children. the government has an agenda. i think education should be the three r's. reading, writing, and arithmetic. host: massachusetts, you're

next. caller: 10 largest problems in our education system is that that teachers and administrators get the lion's share of the funding. as far as after-school extracurricular activities, i believe that some of them, they are expensive. students involved should have to pay for them like hockey or baseball. but the basic class is for your educational glasses? they should be included. host: what about advanced placement classes? caller: they are not that expensive, i do not believe. they are part of an education. playing baseball or football is not. abolish the department of education first. all that money should be returned to the states for the education of the students, not for the glorification of people in washington, d.c.'s since the beginning of the department of education, the quality of education has not

gone up. just look at the recent situation in washington, d.c. where the private school vouchers were half of what they were for the public schools, and the education that the children was getting was far superior. get the teachers union was able to put the cost on that. so much for proper education for the students. host: most days prohibit for charging for supplemental -- basic glasses.

many states require schools to way you fees for lower income students. those above the cut off can be sanctioned if they do not pay. let's go to dallas, texas. but the, a democrat. caller: i think that we're seeing the results of 30 years of conservative politics on two separate educational system. i have taught in private, public, and charter schools. this students and charter schools are way behind the students in private schools. twoink that we're creating

educational outcomes, a different class is, the aristocracy classis, very few get high-quality education. no expense. . then we have the other workers destined to be their servants, basically. host: how does that relate to the fees that we're talking about here? caller: we need to go back to taxing the people of all the money they are giving their children the highest quality education and use those taxes for the public education like we used to do. from eisenhower through reagan. we tax aristocrats, people with very high income and assets, but forbes, but one that are fighting the taxes all these years, when we need a stack taxes, we need a progressive income tax like we used to have. we were able the fund public

schools and we have orchestras' an art class is in gymnastics and all the different things, literature, that ironic term, we did have was called the classic liberal arts education. and we tried to open it to all students. now this education, the classic education, is available only to the few that can afford it. the rest are being treated like they are and trade school. host: we will go on the bill is a republican in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for c-span. i went through a public school. because the public schools. i know the earlier caller was trying to make a differentiation between whether or not the government should pay for our schools and whether not the government should be in the business of providing that schooling. that is a significant difference. sure, the government should pay

for schools, because there's certain people that cannot educate themselves. they do not have the funds. but the government is in the business of running schools. in pennsylvania right now, the school teachers are making a lot of money. we do not have that much money. the government cannot collect that much money. another thing that is very interesting in pennsylvania is that if you are a school teacher and you teach for 40 years in the system, you graduate from college, you begin at 22 and you work until you're 52 years old, you will retire with 100% paid. that is your pension. we just do not have the money to pay for this. that is the problem. and what is the result? you do not have it or mr. come you don't have the band, you don't have the kids. in pennsylvania, they are

canceling junior high sports next year because they cannot afford it. they are given all the money right straight into the pockets of the teachers. thanks to the teachers' union. host: the headline that you just saw, public schools charge kids for basics and frills. the story says that some high schools are charging $200 just for students to come into the door. what you make of all of this? warren, are you with us? caller: as far as charging fees, they already tax us. the problem is the greed and corruption that go with that, and not that is only on that level, because as a community we should support this. but basically agreed to let ask the wealthiest people have gotten so much more wealthy while the middle class people

have fallen. host: administrators and parents also worry that these might affect students chances of getting into good colleges. that jump in public school fees as a familiar feel to one

professor. the right to free education is enshrined as a an american value. it carries a qualifier. students are entitled to a suitable or an adequate education on the public time. that has long been interpreted expansively. back to your phone calls. walter, a democrat in diamond, new jersey. go ahead. caller: i am an independent. host: sorry about that. caller: the basics should be freed. the basics should be free, but

the thought that because you're spending more money, that does not mean you're going to get better results. the same amount -- [unintelligible] we have a thing called that assistance. the state supreme court ordered the government to increase the funding of those districts. to write as people often say that they cannot learn and you are pouring more money into failing schools, that is wrong. that is what i have to say. host: here is a tweet. new york, james, a republican. go ahead.

what is your comment about public schools charging fees? caller: i think they are trying to bring us back to what third world country by making everyone pay for school. a mind is a terrible thing to waste. i think they are just trying to bring everybody down. extra activities after school, if you want to do these things, then you should be charged. host: miami, florida, roger, an independent sccaller. caller: i feel like that on the one hand, sometimes at think parents will take education more seriously if there is at the attached to it. and graduation come times around, they are able to come up with hundreds of dollars to rent limousines and get fancy dresses. but when it comes time for them to go to the bookstore and get a

literature book, the complaint. maybe we need to introduce this. but on the other hand, it becomes a slippery slope. and in our public education, the tuition goes up. i think it might happen in public high school. i am torn on the issue. i can really see that they're trying to come up with creative ways to waste money. -- raise money. having a hope you're good day today. my concern is that society is not looking at this in the correct form. we have the problem of children being in gangs, we do not give them the opportunity that have after-school programs to keep them from being in these situations. by adding all of these fees, whether the books are after- school activities, you are saying to the people they cannot afford this, the common people, we are not going to provide

things to make opportunities for your children to grow in the society in which we want them to be. we are putting a choice for children and parents to say, if you cannot afford this, we will not give you the opportunity for your children to learn and provide for society. which is what we want. that is my point. i believe that the rich should pay of a good portion and taxes to support and ordered to pay for this. host: that is, in baltimore. we will continue talking about this. let me give you a rundown of some of the other half lives. the business section of the "new york times." chrysler paid back its loans, $7.6 billion in loans from the government. that is in many of the papers this morning. from the "washington post,"

about netanyahu's speech to congress yesterday. it said a high bar for resumption of peace talks. another headline on the prime minister's speech. congress loves israeli leader. he made peace with congress but not with negotiations. that is a quote from the peace adviser to the former israeli prime minister. that is the headline in the "baltimore sun." let me show you some of the prime minister's speech yesterday. >> therefore it is absolutely vital that palestinian state beat fully demilitarized. and it is vital, absolutely vital that is room maintain a long-term military presence along the jordan river. solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect israel

in case the peace unravels. because in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that harpies partners today will be there tomorrow. and my friends, when i say tomorrow, i do not mean some distant time in the future. i mean tomorrow. [applause] these can only be achieved around the negotiating table. the palestinian attempt to impose a settlement through the in the united nations will not bring peace. it should be forcefully opposed to by all those who want to see this conflict and. host: prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaking before congress yesterday. if you want to see the whole speech, go to c-span.org and go to our video library. you can watch the whole video

there. we are also covering president obama's overseas trip. he is on a week-long trip to europe and he will be addressing the british parliament today. it will also meet with david cameron, the prime minister of that country, as well. getting back to your phone calls about the public schools charging fees. i think that that these are a good start, but the and goal would be to eliminate all public education. as a libertarian, i would support my daughter's education and all parents would. host: here is an e-mail. we will go to eight democrats in baltimore. caller: good evening. in this country, we should have

equal opportunity. that is what we are founded on, equal opportunity but different results. by charging these fees, you're putting the families of lower income in a cycle of social and economic bondage that never ends. host: you have to turn your television down because i can hear myself from before. another e-mail. james in illinois on a republican line. caller: i believe that the president should get into the college football and basketball programs and do like they did

like the auto dealerships. put in billions of dollars, so that they can take those dollars and they should not make any more than a science teacher are anybody like that. host: as good providence, rhode island, mary, an independent. caller: i do not think that public schools should be charging fees. daughterocked when my dolla entered high school. what she was learning and science class is was what i was learning in junior high. we had to take on the business track. today, kids in ap are learning are what i was learning when i was in school in a college preparatory classes.

her educational system has been done to down. we cannot afford the high teacher salaries and benefits. education is supposed to be about educating children, not about teachers' unions. i used to be a democrat. i am an independent because i woke up. we have to do something. this is unsustainable. we have to do something about our educational system. host: a headline about chrysler paying back most of its bailout. they began to sell its stock in aig. on that although bailout for chrysler, this is the story on the detroit news website about michigan. it says, suvs saved chrysler.

it is hardly off the debt cut, but it is refinancing its debt with private rather than public debt holders. the story goes on to say that suvs is what saved chrysler. that compared with this headline on the detroit news website. white house says no more full- size vehicles unless it is essential. let's go back to our phone lines and the question here this morning -- should public schools be charging fees? thomas of democrat and baltimore. caller: people putting down extracurricular activities are wrong. we should let people play in sports and everything. it is very good for their self- esteem and meaning that, as well as the cost of the education. we can spend billions of dollars on israel, our ally, but we cannot send any more to educate our own children in this country? host: this is the front page story of the "new york times,"

well, it is inside the newspaper. the auto bailout is becoming a political football in 20 to help footballs. -- 2012 politics. democrats also sought to highlight as statements by a likely republican rivals who had criticized the president for federal bail us that they said were unnecessary and wasteful. stanford, va., mike, a democratic collar. caller: i am thinking that we ought to have these for everybody in public schools. one of the problems that we have

in public schools is that everybody has these conversations about education. but you cannot get them to come into their public school to sit down and meet with the teachers or have a conference or anything. are you going to go in and see what their curriculum is looking like? if you have the ability to have a cable bill and pay for video games, i think you can have some nominal cost per month for your child to come into a public school and be able to have the materials that they need. i am working with broken pieces of chalk, with trying to take my own money to put money into the class, to put supplies into the classroom. that stuff goes on all the time. i think a nominal fee of $50 a month per child or a maximum amount per family, i think that is fair. that is something that we can work with. host: this is the "wall street journal," featuring one school

in miami. they eliminated 20% of the teaching staff over two years. class size increased. we will go to annette, the democratic line in cleveland, ohio. caller: i am a democrat and i am

for remote education. we would utilize connections, charters that are remote access education for classes. and for electives that would only be a resource center for libraries, a computer assets, as well as teetering access -- tutoring access. and for academic support programs and library access. that would cut down the cost to parents, because those things are free. also would cut down the cost of the tax base, because the schools would become neighborhood centers and less

cumbersome with the needed staff. host: there has been a lot of attention paid to the 25th district of new york, that special election. of local reporter joining us on the fund. here is her headline. what did this come down to in this race? how was the democrat able to pull off the wind? >> medicare was a major issue. it turned out to be a winning issue with voters. she is certainly our relentless worker and did a lot of campaigning. i think the corwin at crucial missteps. i think it was a combination of things. host: what were some of those

missteps for the republican there? and how was caffeine hochul able to benefit from national attention? guest: the corwin campaign cat the support of republican leaders early on. but as soon as medicare was brought up, it did not seem that the messaging was resonating. and there were other incidents, one of the assembly staff members tried to antagonize jack davis in a way that back. . jack davis was the third-party candidate in this race. i would not say that the race rode on that incident, but things like that worked against corwin. and kathy hochul brought up medicare any chance that she could. host: what was the role of the

independent in this race? did pull votes away from s corwin? guest: republicans are saying that was the case. he got 9% of the bug. he spent a lot of his own money in this race. republicans are certainly making him to be a factor. but when you saw his support of the last few weeks, it was not clear that all of his support was going to corwin. it was not clear that if he was not in the race, all of his voters would have gone to corwin. host: how much money was spent outside of new york and by these candidates? guest: jean corwin and jack davis put a lot of their own money in. $2 million by outside groups. host: do we know when the newly

elected congressman will resume her role in washington? guest: i asked that i had. i am thinking maybe early next week. but i think it was premature to win a swearing-in would be. host: you can go to their web site to read her story. thank you for your time. back to your phone calls. john is a republican. we're talking about public schools charging fees. it is a front-page story in the "wall street journal." caller: thank you for c-span. nothing in life is free, even public education. taxpayers pay the bills for everything. we the citizens pay the bills. public education is only freed for freeloaders. and freeloaders are those that

take public money for rent, for food, for medicaid, take tax credit for their children, and they never pay into the system. host: that as a republican in arkansas. actually is a independent in buffalo, new york. caller: i wanted to say that no, schools should not charge fees for anything. schools just need -- you learn about four or five years have jumped math, job science, -- junk math, junk science. so there should not be any fees. and there should not be fees to go into private schools, either. what they're doing is not really much of a big difference

in public schools. i graduate from high school in 2006 and our help book was so old, he call aids grid. host: 12012 politics -- on 2012 pollack takes -- a new film to premiere on sarah palin. she was playing a central. she reached out to a conservative filmmaker. the fruits of that initial conversation are complete. there is a sweeping at 8 which he screamed for sarah and todd palin in arizona. they had been rumored to purchase the new home there. when it premieres in iowa next month, it could serve as a galvanizing preludin for her

expected presidential campaign, are reintroduction to the nation. bell where republicans have largely concluded that she would not run. conrad, a republican, the morning. caller: thank you for c-span. one school has an ideal model. . they have volunteer parents command, the ratio is one adult for six children. it is not so much the money as it is for children sitting and listening and learning. you can have a very large class if you have an attentive children. also about the sports, we have all the sports leagues that come to our high schools and check out who they want and pay them millions of dollars. i think that local pressure should be put on them to give

back and maybe they could support sport activities. i think that parents should be asked to put into the school, but not in a way to invest in florida, what they did is have every week apparent would bring something in. and in the dead parents that did not have money were only asked to be sending in napkins. oneone did so willingly. host: a couple of stories on the debt ceiling debate. debt is scarier than default for those surveyed. and then here is the headline. house republicans said tuesday that it would allow a vote next week on an increase in the debt ceiling with no strings attached in order to see it defeated and

showed democrats that no increase -- that is the of the " new york times." penned an op-ama ed in today's "times of london" with david cameron. they're going to have a press conference shortly. we may show you some of that here. they are waiting for them to come to the microphone. we go to detroit. caller: i would like to know one question. my property tax covers public schools. so with all of these fees, will that be eliminated all of my tax? host: i do not know the answer to that. what you think? caller: i am against charging

fees for public schools. now that was going to be the situation, i do not think that we should be paying double. it is a sneaky way of taxing people and they are not listening to the real thing about this. i think the public schools should be free. public schools should not have to pay no fees, because that they are going to start paying fees, i want to know why am i paying on my property tax? host: michael in michigan. caller: good morning. schools should be covered. we have the lotteries that are supposed to be paying [unintelligible] host: we will have to let you go. call back again. you are breaking up. we cut to a republican in st. petersburg, florida.

caller: thank you for c-span. thank you for taking my call. i am so interested in the school situation. i worked in the school system for 30 years. they're so many problems, part of the parents do not make the children responsible. they are given free goes, free transportation, free lunch, free baby care, free everything. the children do not return the books at the end of the semester, which causes a big debt to the schools. i think the company's are robbing us blind. also he state and federally mandated programs that the schools have to institute and the schools have to pay for, i would have files full of programs that were instituted while i was there. it all went by the wayside. the hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent on these

programs, they did not do anything. thank you, c-span. host: chicago, willie, a democratic collar. caller: i think we should have just one education system. what we need all of these different systems in the united states? what we need some many? [unintelligible] it does not make any sense. i can we have just one education system? host: while we're waiting for president obama and prime minister david cameron to come to the microphones there, we wanted to let you know that we will have coverage of this press conference on c-span2 this morning. here is his schedule for today. he will hold a press conference and then give a speech to the british parliament.

a reciprocal dinner for the queen. on thursday, he heads -- he has meetings with russia and france at the g-8 summit. also with japan and egypt and others. is also heading to poland as part of a week-long trip to europe. boulder, colorado. caller: with the police search -- the public school system here, i see some much money being spent on things that do not pertain to the kids' education. lots of facelift took up front of the school, at desks of being thrown away that are still very easily use or could be given to a different school district. a lot of wasteful spending. i did not see how we should pay any more than we already are if

we are wasting all this money. they claim all of these budget cuts, but in the interim, they are still spending money like it is going out of style. host: a couple of headlines for you. this is "usa today." mitch daniels may be hoping to be had running mate. and then this in the money section. do not invest in stocks of congress is in session. so far that rule has served him well. it has gained 10.5% since inception. fort wayne, indiana, mike, democratic caller. caller: i was thinking about this. i would not have even if it were not for free lunch.

i would for weeks, and and they both worked, they just did not have good jobs. but the thing that makes me mad about the school system, is not the teachers, it is the parents. the kids that come to class that do not care to graduate or if they pass. and then they just failed classes and they end up dropping out. i went to a school that had a 50% dropout rate in 1996. if you start taking some of these kids that are wasting my money and say, you know one of be here? then pay for the class is that you failed. if the kids want to drop out, they should have to pay. they go there and they waste their money and they do not try our care. they're just there because their parents make them or they hang out with their friends. i think the kids that are trying should not have to pay for the kids that come to class is and do not even care. they don't care if they graduate. it is a social thing. they said charge $50 a class for getting an f.

mom and dad might pay you more attention. host: this story about education. colleges largely for the elite. like other not, these colleges have outsized influence on american society. . mission policies do not matter if a high school seniors, they are a matter of national interest. louisville, kentucky, last phone call on this. caller: the e-mail from indiana said it all. we're talking about all this money from public education. their republican governor, mitch daniels, who decided not to run for president because he has his own agenda, is pulling money out

of public schools and pouring them in that charter schools. we hear about it all the time in kentucky being right next door. and in the editorials, it is unbelievable. and that is what is going on. host: we will leave it there. coming up, we will talk to a few members of congress. and 45 minutes, john garamendi, a democrat from california. he is a member of the armed services committee. and then paul broun from georgia. we will be right back. ♪

>> there are three days of book tv program in this holiday weekend. one of the largest federal sting operations in u.s. history. new releases and others. panels on feminism and favorite books of 2011. activists and filmmaker michael moore on his upcoming memoir. the untold story of barack obama's mother. it is hosted by major garrett. find our schedules online. this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, and bradley and bob woodward on watergate and the fallout for president nixon. the associate professor george mason university talks about the farm policy of president reagan and we will visit fort myer, virginia tech learn about

the oldest active infantry union and its role in presidential areas -- burials. have our schedule e-mailed to you by pressing the schedule alert button. >> c-span possible local content vehicles kickoff the local city tours in st. petersburg this weekend. a look that the book industry with local booksellers. american history of bans on c- span3 from the st. petersburg museum of history. the first scheduled commercial aircraft and the hidden history of angola, indians and former slaves who fought two wars against the united states in the early 1800's. watch it on c-span2 and c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: paul broun is our guest.

he represents the 10th district of georgia. let me begin, congressman, telling our viewers what secretary of homeland security janet napolitano said about osama bin laden. >> we must remain vigilant regarding the threat to the united states posed by hawkeye that affiliate's or al qaeda- light a filly as such as -- affiliate's. our security posture, which always includes a number of measures both seen and unseen, will continue to protect the american people from the evolving threats that we face. host: what threats do we face post-the killing of bin laden? what vulnerabilities are there question mark guest: -- what

vulnerability is are there? guest: there are experts that can tell the american people where we stand. the homeland security committee in the house has a hearing today to find out where we stand. the american people have a lot of concerns and we should be. it is one of the most important and one of the few constitutional things that we really do appear trying to make sure that this country stays secure and safe. host: at the threats change that much after the killing of bin laden? or have they been there all along? maybe they have been heightened. guest: we have the ongoing threat. the killing of bin laden has not stop the threats by any means. we do not know what is going on with al qaeda. particularly they are looking for a safe trip -- a second

leader. we have to figure out what is going on with that. are other groups going to take over instead of bin laden? with his central core of foes, will be someone like the al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, aqap? or will they be the driving force internationally to destroy america? american citizens deserve to know. we're going to have this huddle to get together and hear from the experts about where we are, what is going on on the ground, and absolutely it is critical for us to focus on those who want to destroy america and american interests. that is what we're going to be doing. host: with your work on the homeland security committee, even before bin laden was killed, where are we the most vulnerable? guest: we have a lot of vulnerabilities, greta. we have been looking at those.

whether it is our infrastructure, and we have seen some possible attacks about infrastructure, whether our transportation industries we saw with the panty bomber, and other types of fund abilities, so we need to be ever vigilant to make sure that we keep americans and american interests safe. we will be figuring out where al qaeda central is going. who will replace osama bin laden? will it be these other groups? how much influence will one person versus another one have? are we going had more lone wolf type of attacks on america? are we facing bigger tax like 9/11? we have to get that information, we have lots of information.

the policy makers need to be informed. the american citizens need to be informed. we need to focus on how much we need to be concerned about any particular entity. we're going to be focusing our energies where homeland security is going to look. it would get as much information we can to keep american safe in this country as well as american interests safe overseas. host: this hearing today, debate on the senate floor continues on the patriot act and extending three provisions that deal with anti terror. one of them is the loan will. the chairwoman of the intelligence committee was on the floor on monday talking about this lone wolf provision. >> the recent case of a saudi national arrested in texas this past february shows why the lone wolf authority is necessary. he was arrested after the fbi

learned that he had purchased chemicals and conducted research needed to make improvised explosive devices. he had also researched bomb targets, including the palace residence of a former president, george w. bush. unlike other recent terrorists like david headley and of the metallic abdulmutallab, he was not identified on the basis of this connection with terrorist organizations. he is better described as one of the most recent cases of individuals already inside the united states to become radicalized and commit to carrying out terrorist attacks. it was this kind of threat that the lone wolf authority is

important. and so why we should extend this mechanism. is also this kind of threat that the intelligence and community is worried about. people inside united states may be spurred to action in retaliation for the strike against bin laden. host: do you share the intelligence committee chairman's concern at the end, that there might be retaliation by these lone wolves? guest: that is certainly a possibility. it is one of the issues that we will look at the hearing today. we want to see how much potential there is. i think also the potential of a lone wolves and their attacks would just further are examples of why we need to have a strong intelligence community. focusing on those who want to

harm us. i have very big concerns about our constitutional rights and our civil liberties. i think we need to have absolutely. vigilant attitudes toward protecting the rights of american citizens. but we also need to focus on those that want to harm us, who want to destroy us. to do so, it is very important to have a very strong human intelligence community, and president clinton in my opinion destroyed a lot of our capability in that around. we need to rebuild it. if president bush did not to the extent i like to see, and this president has not build an intelligence community like we need to have to make sure that we stay safe as a nation, that the american citizens and our

american interests are safe. there is always the potential of a lone wolf without any connection. having wiretaps for the government to be able to arbitrarily picked out an individual to try to follow and tap their internet service and to do some of those times is extremely dangerous also, so we need to be certain that there is somebody watching out for american civil liberties and for our god-given rights. host code does that mean when the patriots act -- it is expected to pass in the senate. are you a no? guest: i'd really undecided of what the final form is going to be. i am not definitely a yes or a no at this point. i have very strong concerns about this reauthorization.

host: how would you like it to be amended? guest: i do not have the power to amend its at this point. we will see what the bill looks like with a comeback to the house. i do have some very strong concerns about this reauthorization. host: is it mostly the lone wolf provisions? guest: all three provisions. we need to protect our civil liberties. greta, we need to focus all those who want to harm us. i went through -- i will give you an example. i went through security at the airport. i walked through. right behind me, there was a gridlock, a little, old lady, and she was padded -- there was a grandma, a little old lady,

and she was patted down. we need to focus all those people who want to harm us. we need to identify those people. we do that through intelligence and trying to get into the inner circle, the following those people who want to destroy america, and focus on those individuals. a lot of the general public. fortunately, the department of homeless security -- and unfortunately, the department of homeless debt -- of homeland security is not focusing all those who want to harm our nation. host: this tweet -- guest: the u.s. military has to be a very big part. i carry a copy of the

constitution in my pocket. of the document as intended by our founding fathers -- national-security, national defense, foreign affairs -- that should be the major function of the federal government in my opinion. i would like to see it go back to that focus. we have to find -- we have to stop out rate is spending and growth of the federal government. the viewer who tweeted about the military -- our military is being stretched very, very thin. we have to change the attitudes of the federal government and what is doing and send those powers back to the state and to the people. host: paul broun is with us. the 10th district of georgia, he

is our guest here for about 30 more minutes. let's go to a republican in georgia. caller: good morning. paul, i agree that we need to focus all those who want to harm us. we are spending entirely too much of this war on terror at this point. here, we have about 12 banks. only two are rated b or better. i would submit to you that the people trying to harm us are on wall street and the federal reserve which is killing the middle-class with all of this inflation they are creating. i think your focus on terrorism is misplaced. guest: i think we have to focus on a lot of things. our financial security and stability -- we have to create jobs here in america. admiral lynch, chairman of the

joint chiefs, says the greatest security problem is this tremendous debt. mullen.with admiral glenn be we just got to stop this outrageous spending. we have tremendous problems. i was in favor -- i was not in favor of the bank bailouts. we have to stop this outrageous spending that is going on. it is just critical for our own security interests and critical for the future of our nation. our children and our great grandchildren are going to suffer tremendously if we do not stop this spending and to create jobs in the private sector, not government jobs. i of fighting for that, too. caller: good morning.

i of glad to talk to you this morning. as a democrat, i would like to know if you could put aside your talking points for a second if you could. you could not say president obama. i understand what your political side is. i have children end grandchildren, too. i am a retired firefighter. when you are talking about the private sector, would you give president obama and the credit this morning? any credit for saving the auto industry? how about giving up barack obama a little credit? host: we got your point. guest: i have given barack obama a tremendous amount of credit for making the decision that he did about osama bin laden.

i give him high accolades for that. i have always credited the president when he does something that i consider right. the stimulus bill that you are talking about -- there was a report that just came out that said the stimulus bill created 450,000 government jobs, but it delayed or destroyed 1 million private-sector jobs. think back chrysler and gm were too big to fail, or a i g or goldman sachs were too big to fail. i voted against the tarp bill. when hank paulson to the congress and said the sky was falling, i voted against the first truncheon and the second tranche. i have been a critic of the

financial dealings with the american people that president bush did it. president bush was a big spender. he spent more money. even when you take out all of these wars. he spent more money than bill clinton did. barack obama has been a detriment as a model for monday that president bush -- barack obama has been spending more money than president bush. when president obama doesn't do good, i give him accolades. -- when president obama does something good, i give him accolades. the way to do is to stimulate the free private system. a free enterprise system is in the engine and that pulls along

the trend of economic prosperity in america. we need to stimulate that engine so we can start creating jobs here in america. we are doing at of -- up here in washington today with this huge debt. we have to stop this tremendous spending. we have got to stop it and start creating jobs in the private sector. host: will go on to jerry in utah. caller: i hope the american people see out there what a con job you are. you talk about our security. you leave the borders are wide open. i am ex-military. the first thing you do is secure your perimeter. republicans and democrats have allowed illegals to come over here. they are from all over the

world. you let them come into this country, set up their sleeper cells, and one of these days, they are going to get us. we go overseas to fight these people. yet we let them walk across our borders. host: we will leave it there. guest: i have not been one who has left the borders open. in fact, i criticized president bush. we have had four presidents -- all have left our borders open. i have been very critical of all four of them for that reason. i agree with you wholeheartedly. we must secure our borders. you are absolutely correct when you say these other-than- mexicans are coming into this country. it is also an economic issue.

we have to deal with the borders and secure our southern border as well as our northern border. there are other members of congress here that are also strong advocates of securing our borders. i am fighting to secure the borders and that will continue to do so. host: here is a "washington post" headline -- here is a tweet from our viewer -- response tos hurricane katrina was a dismal. if you go to new orleans today where fema came in to try to help those people, and

neighborhoods are like ghost towns down there. did you go into neighborhoods where there is the private sector, the red cross, synagogues, where the private sector went to help those folks, those people are back in a very vibrant-functioning communities. fema has been a dismal failure. i think we need to find some way to mobilize the american people. we are the most magnanimous folks in the world, and we have to find a way to get the private sector to do these things. i have not seen a bill. i am i going to make a judgment off of the newspaper had lied, but we will see. we need to mobilize the private sector. that is one of those bridges that we need to build. we have plenty of money

virtually every state if we stop spending so much money in washington but d.c. and we are building a bigger buildings and philip them up with bureaucrats. we need to have people on the ground and get those dollars to go to the folks. host: the article said it -- let's go to scottsdale, ariz.. caller: i wanted to go back to the deficit. that being the greatest threat. i believe that is true. people come up with some great ideas, how to solve that, how to help solve it with different whatnot.dea ahnd

it seems like every time somebody comes up with an idea, a politician will say that will not be enough. it is not going to even make a difference. it seems like you have to start somewhere. every dollar should count. we should not be blowing off every idea. every dollar should count. they do not seem to think like that. why bother with this little idea? guest: steve, i agree with you. we need to cut spending. it even small amounts are as important as big amounts of cutting spending. we need to cut the outrageous spending going on up here in washington, d.c. i of fighting to do so.

we are going to have a debt ceiling fight a very soon and we are going to see what is entailed in that vote. just next week ahead we will be having a clean debt ceiling vote. the president and his administration has asked for a vote. harry reid in the last day or two would say we need a vote without anything on the bill except for raising debt-ceiling. the house is going to do that. just next week, but it will fail. i do not think there will be a single republican that will vote for that. there will be a number of democrats that will vote no also. we have to have major cuts in federal spending. speaker john boehner has been very clear that it has to be trillions of dollars because we

cannot continue on this road. we are going to have to deal with entitlements because that is where -- two-thirds of federal spending that goes on today, roughly two-thirds, congress does not have anything to do with it. it has to slow down. and nobody is going to have social security and medicare, and nobody is going to have these programs any more when our economy crashes. we have to do something about it. the further that we go down the road, the worse it is going to be. we have to deal with it right now. small cuts, big cuts -- they have to add up to a huge cut. host: we are " to go to pennsylvania. hey, joe. caller: thank you to c-span.

i am a very concerned citizen about homeland security. i would like to get back on the subject of al-qaeda being a real threat to this country. as a citizen, i am scared to death of al-banka and al-wall street. at the end of a television program, they said these banks and firms are even bigger than when they were bailed out in 2008. even though i am a democrat, i thought you guys were not taking these guys, putting handcuffs on them, and sending them to jail. guest: i appreciate that comment. i am concerned about it, too. i voted against the tarp funds. we have to go back to the free market system work of the

government is not picking winners or losers. it is incredible to me that we have gotten this far. the american people are going to have to start demanding a different kind of governance. please do not paint people with the same brush. there are many people appear that are not in favor, republicans as well as democrats, that were not in favor of bailing out wall street, the big banks, and aig. i think they ought to fail if they are doing bad business practices and if they are bankrupt. let it go down. let them rise up to the free market enterprise system. when governments start propping up businesses and the wall street bankers and the wall

street stockbrokers,-we are getting way away our constitution and what is in the best interest of the american people. the big thing is all of those jobs.hings kill it is not going to be wall street. it is going to be the small businesses in your home town and my home town of better doing business with their neighbors, and not the wall street folks. please do not pay with the same color that you are paid to everyone else because members of congress are not all in the same boat on this issue. host: joe from florida, an independent, good morning. caller: hello. good morning. i am also concerned about the threat from al-qaeda. exactly what american has been killed in the last 10 years from

terrorism. that makes tornadoes vastly more dangerous. host: is at the threat and not real? . guest: major hasan is an example. we have had americans killed. major hasan has been in the news recently. when that happens account janet napolitano and the department of homeless security would not even call that a terrorist attack. al-qaeda is a very definite clear and present danger to the american people and to american interests. we have to focus on deck, too, but we have to create jobs here in america. we do that by getting the regulatory burden off of

business and industry so they can flourish and to create jobs. i have two different businesses that i need to tell you about. i have a lady who has 80 employees. she desperately wants to expand her business and needs to hire one or two more people, but she is not going to do it because of the tax burden, the fear of obamacare, taxes going up, which president obama has promised that he wants the taxes to go up on businesses. the democrats keep talking about let's increase taxes on rich people. most of those people are small businessmen and women who are trying to run a business. this lady is one of those, and she will not hire more people. i have another business, a man has $30 million in the bank and wants to make a huge extension of his business. he wants to hire 100 or more

people. he is not going to do it because of the fear of the economy and taxes. we will create more jobs and pay down debt, stop the spending, but we have to focus on jobs and the economy, and that is extremely important. as well as focus on al-qaeda and outside threats. our economy is the biggest threat to this nation as far as i am concerned. we have to create those jobs in the private sector. host: ron is a republican in pittsburgh. caller: perhaps you can give me some good answers as far as homelands security. wouldn't it be more beneficial for our country to bring back these troops?

posting troops at these ports so all of these containers are properly inspected so the illegals are not coming in here. the money they are spending to supply these other countries could be going back into the u.s. economy rather than being spent in other countries helping to the economies of these countries that our housing many of these terrorists in the first place. guest: i agree with you. i am asking those same questions you are asking. we still have troops in xhosa vote. -- in kosovo. i think we need to look at with these troops need to be. i think we are spending too much money with these troops stationed all over the world, and i agree with you.

we have to secure our borders. we can do that by many means. i would rather have the national guard on our borders than in kosovo, frankly. i agree with you. reducing -- by defense spending. that needs to be on the table, too. is this the proper way to do it? i am less sure that it is a frankly. host: welcome to the conversation. guest: thank you for calling. caller: i want to let you know that i believe it was very right barack obamaeat did for the american people when he got osama bin laden.

i think it shows strength for the american people and that bore greatest trick that we have for our military. i believe that barack obama has what he has and the potential for our people. i think we should not be determined in afghanistan. i know our soldiers will come home soon. i believe that barack obama has done a great job. not only has this been done, but there will be four more years for barack obama. i don't care what anyone says. he has done more in the job against terrorism than any other president in the debt issue in history of our country. guest: i have given barack obama accolades. right after the incident where

barack obama authorized the attack on that compound into pakistan when we killed barack obama, it was a great day for the safety -- would be killed osama bin laden, it was a great day for our safety. we have to focus on what is in our best interests. i have given barack obama accolades when he does a things right in my opinion. i say so when he dustings that they're going to harm american out. i say that, too. he is a big spender. he has created more debt. when its policy was speaker of the house and harry reid was running the senate, they created more debt in those two years. we have to get our economy under control and stop the outbreak is betting here in washington.

it is absolutely critical. we have to start creating a those jobs here in america. host: brad from ohio. caller: i am a republican. i wanted to bring to the attention to most of the people listening to this gentleman that he has mentioned so many times about jobs and being able to create jobs and about these wealthy people creating jobs when they had all of these tax breaks and they did not create jobs. how can republicans continue to listen when the republican congress have not brought a single, not one single job bill, to the floor? my jobsi introduced hopper m

bill. it would reduce its taxes on businesses. dividend taxes and death taxes and it would allow immediate write-off of all capital expenditures for business. a famous economist today who proposed [unintelligible] that economists are talking about all over the world, i asked if my bill was passed into law what it would do for our economy. he said it is unfathomable how many jobs would be created if they passed my bill. i have been promoting that. we are going to have some jobs legislation that is going to be brought to the floor soon. our leadership was talking about they are " to bring the jobs package. they did not say when.

i think it will probably be certainly before the august break. host: what is it going to include? guest: i do not know yet. i think you will see tax breaks on this boy. i think you will see some regulatory reform -- on this. that is exactly what we need to do to get our economy going. that will help pay down debt if we stop spending the money that the federal government brings in. caller: hello? can you hear me? i am listening to this man, this republican, and what i want to say is i believe that the republican party is more dangerous to this country right now and then any osama bin laden or any other person outside this

country. you people are sitting back and helping these corporations, literally, take over this country. host: what is your example? caller: i was born in 1953, and i remember when the black people could not vote in this country. you can look around and see how these republican governors are. and other representatives in these states. i live in michigan. we have a czar, a governor literally taken over cities. firing mayo;rs and elected people, and all of these laws putting in. host: we are going to move on.

guest: i do not know where the anger is coming from. she is just wrong. host: we will move on to new jersey. caller: don't laugh. it is pronounced exactly how it is spelled. [laughter] i laugh 'cause it's a big thing. guest: i love your state. people think about new jersey in some bad terms. they look at the "jersey shore" tv program and think that's new jersey. you have a gorgeous day to. wonderful people in new jersey.

i love your state. caller: most people do not realize that in northern new jersey, it is beautiful. guest: and is a rural state. people do not understand there are farms and cattle. it is an absolutely gorgeous estate. caller: my family has been here since 1634, and i now feel like we live in a foreign country. we are overwhelmed with immigration. i have two questions. number one is how much taxpayer money is involved in iraq? host: i have to leave it at one question because we are running out of time. guest: there is a lot of money in iraq and in afghanistan. i was working on some wildlife management projects primarily in china and pakistan.

i was out in the mountains. the russians or fighting -- wer fighting the muldahdeen at the time. i was camped out in the pakistani mountains. i could hear cannon fire from where i was up there in the mountains. i work with those people. their mentality is different from our western thought today. i do not think president bush or obama understands the tribal structure of that part of the world. i am excited about the general that will be heading up the efforts in afghanistan because i do think he has that tribal mindset. we need to focus on their society and the way that they function. we cannot force american society, american political

function or anything else in that society. we will never have, in our lifetime, a strong central government in kabul. i'm really excited about general allan being there because i think we are going to change our strategy. we want to get out of afghanistan as soon as we can. host: that is our top pick up next with john garamendi, the democrat of california. paul broun, thank you for being here. guest: i want to encourage people to go on our website, and follow me on facebook. follow me there, give us comments. i am eager to hear comments, whether you agree with me or not.

and if you go on a web site. broun.house.gov. follow me there. there is an e-mail address also. fall also facebook, twitter, and you can get those links on broun.house.gov. host: thank you. first, a news update from c- span radio. >> some of the headlines. the british prime minister and president obama are confronting complex security debates over afghanistan, libya, economic growth. midway through his european tour, mr. obama began his day with private meetings with the prime minister and deputy prime

minister. they are holding a news conference. later, president obama addresses both houses of the british parliament. palestinian president today criticized a peace plan presented by israel's prime minister and suggested the palestinians have their sights set on seeking u.n. recognition in september. talking about benjamin netanyahu's address yesterday, the president said today "he did not say anything we can build on positively." kathy whole goal told her supporters that they picked a rights issue. that democrat rode a wave of voter discontent over the national plan to change medicare and overcame decades of

republican dominance in upstate new york to win tuesday's special election in the 26 congressional district. in paris today, the french finance minister said she will seek the top job at the international monetary fund. a it is a candidacy that has widespread support across europe. she would replace the former imf chief who resigned after being charged with sexually assaulting a hotel housekeeper. those are some of the latest headlines. >> and follow c-span's "washington journal" on twitter. you can also add your comments to the conversation. start your twitter account today at -- you are watching c-span,

bringing new politics and public affairs. every morning, it is awhirl "washington journal -- it is "washington journal." weekdays, watched live coverage of the u.s. house, and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forums. on the weekends, you can watch our signature interview programs. you can also watch our program and any time at c-span.org. c-span, washington and in your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with john garamendi, the democrat from california, member of the armed services committee. i want to show you the headline today from secretary gates'

speech yesterday. guest: it is a big issue, and there is a solution. get out of the afghanistan war. that is a war that we are not winning. we have to focus like a laser on terrorism wherever it happens to be. it is spreading throughout the world. we really need to focus -- host: would be the strategy for afghanistan? a lot of've moved troops and this summer. and not sit around and wait and wait until 2014. gates and others have said we are likely to be there for a

decade. we are pouring into that the lives of americans and others around the world. don't continue to be a presence. we have to do social and economic aid and we will need to continue to work with the police and the armed forces there for support and training. 100,000 troops on the ground is not winning that war. there is a place to start saving money. easy. a $100 billion right there. host: what about the big ticket items? are you willing to eliminate those types of programs? guest: i do not think "eliminate" is the right word. can we stretch that out? yes. much of the missile defense program, half a billion dollars that will be voted on today. that cannot be used this year or next year.

it is a system that has to take longer to develop. it does not work right now. why spend a half a billion dollars on some of that will not work and is not needed right now? we can reduce, spread out, and make a different direction. in is pretty clear that the wars of the near future are not going to be major land wars. but it is going to be a war against terrorists wherever they happen to be. we got osama bin laden with good intelligence and special operations and forces. host: "the washington post" says -- expect that price tag to be? guest: $700 billion or a few billion dollars more than that.

almost all of that in afghanistan now. that is what i am saying. take afghanistan, changed the direction, use of the successful getting osama bin laden as a pivot point and get back to what we originally were doing, go after the terrorists wherever they happen to be. this is an opportunity to get back to anti-terrorism. host: should that be the sole focus of the pentagon? guest: of course not. we have other things that we have to do. about 15% to 18% of our total defense budget is used to protect [unintelligible] for the world's economy. about $100 billion a year is used to protect the flow of oil out of the gulf every year.

get on with the green, clean technologies, moved away from foreign oil. host: defense authorization bill heads to the floor this week. part of that is expected to be a debate about libya. what do you think about a world power resolution? has president obama -- has the time run out on that 60 days? does the congress need to do something about our actions in libya? guest: absolutely. the constitution is quite clear about who is who can declare war. he needs to come to congress. he needs to come to the american people and explain what is all about and what the tactics are and what the endgame is. host: should we be in libya?

guest: we are in libya. we are a part of nato and what is going on in that area. how long are we going to be there? that is what the president has to explain to congress. host: what is going to be the strategy in iraq? guest: in the defense authorization bill there is a section that authorizes the use of american military force anywhere in the world there happens to be a terrorist. it basically is an unlimited authorization for the use of military power anywhere in the world against any nation in the world wherever there might be a terrorist. it is troublesome. it has to come out of this piece of legislation. it is an unlimited authority for

the president to go to war. host: is it to go after terrorists wherever they may be? guest: and more. to go after any nationa. that is a big deal. i guess we can declare war on ourselves. it is a very, very bad provision that was written into the defense authorization bill, basically unknown until very late at night when i happened to be thumbing through the thing. host: who put in? guest: i suppose the majority. not too many people are taking credit for it now. will it come out? the president has now said he would veto the bill if it stays in it. it has to come out. there is no way. host: we will now go to phone calls. sean is a democrat in texas.

go ahead. caller: hi. my question is concerning all the money that we spent over there in iraq on terrorism. i guess what i want to say is that we need them forces on terrorism. i do believe -- i am going into the u.s. army in a couple days. what about sending food to them? guest: first of all, congratulations and thank you for your service to your country when you do enter the military. the issue in afghanistan is more than 100,000 american troops on the ground what has become a civil war. that is what i am opposed to. i want to go after the terrorists wherever they happen

to be. the u.s. military has been very successful in doing that. host: i want to show our viewers what president obama had to say during a news conference in london. this is what he had to say about afghanistan and libya. >> completing that transition by 2014. we discussed the opportunities to promote reconciliation and a settlement. president karzai has made it clear that he will talk to anyone who is willing to end the violence and accept the afghan constitution. we welcome the positive cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan on that front. at the same time, the prime minister and i both agree that our nations have a long-term interest in insuring that afghanistan never becomes a

launching pad of attacks against our people. we are committed to a strong and enduring partnership with the people of afghanistan. as historic change unfolds across the middle east and north africa, we agree that the pursuit of self determination must be driven by the peoples of the region and not imposed from the outside. host: congressman, what did you hear there from the president about strategy in afghanistan? guest: i did not hear the words that we are going to focus on terrorism. i did not hear him say that. i think underlying his words is that we are going after terrorism. obviously, we have a long-term interest in afghanistan, but that does not include 100,000 troops on the ground. they need to come home soon.

i mean right now. we can bring home 50,000 troops this year in the next 12 months. that can be done. as we change the focus from one of going after the taliban and participating in the civil war and nation-building, change the focus back to dealing with terrorists. we cannot deal with terrorists in pakistan. we do not need when hunt 2000 troops -- we do not need 100,000 troops in pakistan to deal with it. host: when you hear the president say that the united states and england as a long- term interest to stay in afghanistan, what was your reaction? guest: mr. president, what do you mean? does that mean an embassy that has a few marines hanging around? does that mean 25,000 troops

heading around in afghanistan? what exactly does it mean? they are going to continue to have an american presence at some level. certainly, we are going to have to continue to do foreign aid and support for afghanistan, but we do not need $120 billion a year to do that. host: what your thoughts about president karzai? . guest: his government is corrupt. not trustworthy. we need to be very, very careful. that negotiated settlement will have to include president karzai, and he is going to have to give. there must be a negotiated settlement. the president suggested that a moment ago. host: what does the taliban have to say in order to have a

settlement? guest: the have to be pronounced and it has to be very clear to the taliban and to everybody else, that it to harbor terrorists, we are going to come and get them. we are going to take you out. we are going to go get the terrorists and take them out. caller: what about what general petraeus said about u.s. support for israel against the palestinians being a threat to american troops? yesterday, we saw benjamin netanyahu get more standing ovations that president obama did. our support for israel is what got us attack -- host: james, we got your point. guest: i do not buy any of that. they had a lot of different reasons for doing so. none of them were valid.

our support for israel is essential and necessary. i think you are wrong. host: where are we in resolving peace between israel and palestine? guest: the president is quite correct, in that it will have to be decided between israel and palestine. the president was pushing the envelope. that is ok. let him push the envelope. somebody is going to have to push it. benjamin netanyahu was quite correct about negotiating with terrorists. that is now going to work. he is going to have to have a secure government to work with. host: we will go to a republican in texas. you are on the air. caller: i just wanted to say

that you just have to leave it to the democrat administration and leadership in the house and senate to snatch defeat out of victory in of afghanistan and pakistan and deplete the military budget and spend all of that on the other money so there is no money for the next president to reconstitute our military when our constitution calls for a military, not for a lot of the social spending and the stuff that democrats want to spend. guest: that is a very interesting colossally that i think the american public rejects. that military has to be used very wisely. in my view, it is not been used wisely in iraq. that was a war that president bush started unnecessarily.

that war cost over $1 trillion and was paid for from money from china. that is where a good portion of the deficit has come from. that is the kind of thing that we have to avoid it. as anybody who cares deeply about this country, do not ever get involved in the war did you do not have to get involved in. thousands of lives were lost. we do not ever want to do that again. host: an independent caller from baltimore. caller: i respectfully and thank you for the knowledge that you just shared with that middle of the country person who does not seem to understand. just in the sense of defending the border. there is a realistic duty of the

government. the 11th amendment says to defend and promote the general welfare of the united states. that is the 11th amendment. for you, sir, i beg you to give me some understanding of why. 90% of her representatives refused to put revenue on the table. host: we will leave it there and get a response. guest: we are going to have to deal with the deficit. how did we get here? president clinton left his presidency with a surplus. if the same policies had been continued, which would have completely paid off the american debt. it did not happen. george w. bush came into office. two massive tax cuts were passed, most of the benefits went to the wealthier people in

this country. two wars, neither of which were paid for, all borrowed money. add to that the medicare drug program that was also not paid for. finally, totally abandoning the regulation of wall street and the housing market, the great collapse, and we wound up where we are today with an extraordinary deficit. it is going to take time. part of that is the reinstitution of taxes on the wealthy of this nation. host: welcome. caller: hi. in terms of afghanistan, i think our present there is a crucial for our national security because stability in that entire region is important for the world because of the oil. in terms of spending, here is

where the money is. i had to go to the hospital about a year ago for an abdominal pain and i had to have an ultrasound. i spent five hours in the hospital. the bill was $1,900 for an ultrasound. and an examination from two people. that is where the money is that is bankrupting this country. guest: first of all in regards to afghanistan, we do not need 100,000 troops there and $100 billion a year to deal with those issues. they are destabilizing pakistan. pakistan is the issue. afghanistan is a side issue. all of those things come into play. with regard to where the money is, you are quite correct about the medical system in the united states. it is an ever-growing part of

the american academy and does consumer an increasing share of the gdp of this nation and it needs to be dealt with. unfortunately, the republicans the medicareinated the la program which happens to be an extremely efficient, effective medical system that works very, very well. the republicans are determined to terminate it. i will tell you this there is no way the democrats are going to allow medicare to be terminated. medical expenses for the system have to be brought under control. in the affordable health care act, there are numerous provisions that will bring down the cost of medical care across this nation for everybody, both medicare as well as for the general public including people like you. host: wendy is on the republican

line from florida. caller: i like your ideas. i voted for mccain because i am loyal to mccain. i heard years ago the reason why they attacked us because we had bases in saudi arabia. also, the other question i wanted to ask you is our ex- military -- why can we bring the troops home and worry about the united states of america? these people who say we should go over there -- what will they put on a uniform and find out with a sacrifice is. guest: many, many reasons why al-qaeda exists t. all of those reasons are absolutely correct. they have a rationale that has an attraction to certain people are around the world and in the united states. we need to deal with those

reasons why people would find a kid and terrorism mantra and story to be attractive. one of them happens to be that we have foreign troops occupying afghanistan and iraq for that matter. that is not a reason to get out. the reason to get out is not working. let's get on with moving most of our troops out of afghanistan and do it in a big. and get on with dealing with the terrorists. part of that solution has to be that american values afterbeat once again top of the agenda -- the values of democracy, and open society, tritoma's speech and religion and tolerance. those are the values that need to be there, not the value of extraordinary strength being displayed on the ground in afghanistan through the military. host: 15 minutes left with the congressmen.

said louis, missouri caller: you mentioned it the and funded amount to cover the iraq war, plus afghanistan. why can we not raise taxes to cover those wars? it is not too late to do that. guest: very simply put, the republicans absolutely refuse to let that happen, and they control the house of representatives at this moment. certainly we ought to reinstitute the higher tax rate for the super-wealthy in this nation. they need to pay their fair share. as to corporations across this nation. and we need to end those kinds of subsidies that are just not necessary. the oil industry, the most successful industry added world, does not need your tax money as a subsidy, nor my tax money as a subsidy. yet they are receiving billions of dollars every year of tax assistance, subsidies, your tax money being used to help the oil industry.

, on, it makes no sense at all. finally, what republicans are suggesting is that to solve the budget deficit, we cut medicare, that we go to the elderly, the aged, blind, the disabled in this nation, take money out of their pocket while giving the very same money to the oil industry. it is nonsense, it is terrible lipolysis, but yet that is what republicans are suggesting -- terrible public policy, but yet that is what republicans are suggesting we do. democrats will do everything we can to see that that does not happen. we will not allow medicare to be cut, and simultaneously for the oil companies to receive tax deductions and benefits and subsidies. host: use it on the natural resources committee. they argue that we paid a fair share, a lot of money, millions of dollars every single day in royalties and fees, etc. guest: that's nonsense. in the deep water of the gulf, the oil industry pays zero

royalties. they don't pay a royalty at all much of the drilling in the super deep waters of mexico. it is an abomination. they should stop. they should at least by royalty and their fair share of taxes. why in the world would you ever need the oil company -- in the last half the kids, they have had $1 trillion of after-tax profits -- that last half decade, they've had $1 trillion after -tax profits. no way, no how. but that is what is happening. host: let me go back to medicare. republicans are saying you've got to deal with medicare and it is a huge program, a huge but our deficit. is it off the table? guest: cuts in medicare off the table -- host: how to tackle the deficit? guest: not that way.

medicare is a very efficient program. what you have to do is deal with the overarching problem of medical services in the united states, which is growing. medicare is not causing. medicare happens to be one of the brakes on it because medicare is efficient. the health insurance industry is extraordinarily inefficient. i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years, and i know the health insurance industry. is extraordinarily inefficient. there are thousands upon thousands of policies out there. it created an administrative morass, chaos, the costs about 30% of every health care dollar and 85 health insurance system simply used -- in the private health insurance system is simply used for administrative costs. no country in the world would tolerate those kinds of administrative costs, and yet we do. we need evidence-based, clinically proven at madison and every level. in light of the medical services are not that way. there is -- a lot of the medical

services are not that way. there is fraud out there. the republican administration in the decade of the 2000's -- guess what happened? it went through the roof. in the health care reform act, there was money for the irs to go after medicare fraud. the vendor first thing the republican congress did when they came in in january -- very first thing the republican congress did when they came in i degenerate was produced the money to fight fraud. hello? what are you guys doing? it is a problem. that is not the nature of medicare, no reason whatsoever to terminate medicare, which is precisely what the republicans intend to do. host: congressman john garamendi is our guest. he sits on the armed services committee. oregon, you are next. caller: people, we have done this before.

host: all right, and joe, independent in missouri. caller: so far, i greet with about 100% of what you've said this month -- i agree with about one outer% of what you said this morning. host: ahead of my wife. caller: all throughout the country of iraq, several years now -- my question is, there were three young people who were caught by iran that said that they went over the border there. in a time of war fought all over iraq, how do people get a visa to go to the work country, a country engaged in war, and just hiking around the country? how can they do that? at a time of war, and they say, oh, we were just out for a sunday stroll. guest: well, that is a good question. i don't know the answer to that

question. i have no idea how or why they were there. apparently they were hiking in an area that is a very beautiful, mountainous area of iraq. what happened to their? it is clear that iran might possibly did reach across the board and granted them. the question is whether they were on the iran or iraq side of the border. in any case, iran or to send those two are many kids back to the united states. -- iran ought to send those two are many kids back to the united states. there is no way they are spies. that is just foolishness. iran is a major problem we ought to be focusing on, creating trouble not only in iraq and afghanistan, but also rapidly moving towards building a nuclear weapon, which is extraordinarily destabilizing in that area. iran is a major, major challenge, and one that we have

to address very toughly. host: "the new york times" had this headline. "defense secretary gates on tuesday said that if some american troops remained in iraq beyond the scheduled withdrawal of united states forces by the end of this year, it would be reassuring to persian gulf countries, but not to iran." guest: no doubt that prior to in 2002,ion of iraq iraq was one of the major talapoins to the power of -- major counter points to the power of iran them to one of the major effects of george w. bush's invasion of iraq was the empowerment of iran, increase the power and influence of iran. as far as keeping troops in iraq, it is a major question, one in which the iraq government is going to have to deal with it. we must be very careful not

maintain any significant number of troops in iraq, -- and, up we must be very careful about maintaining any significant number of troops in iraq. host: this is the headline in "the washington post." "u.s. imposes sanctions on seven firms linked to iran at." what does the defense authorization bill say on the issue of iran? guest: iran must have a tougher sanctions. we cannot allow iran to get a nuclear weapon. the united states to come out any hard on any company that continues to do business in iran, and we need to ratchet up the pressure on. there is a bill in the legislature right now in congress to increase the sanctions to ratchet up the pressure on iran. that has to be done. iran cannot be allowed to have any clear weapon. host: not part of the defense authorization bill? guest: it is a separate legislation. host: randy, you are on.

caller: you have a lot of tears when you sit there and lie about medicare -- lot of nerves when you sit there and lie about medicare. you don't want to talk about that, do you? guest: i do want -- to talk want -- i do want to talk about that -- caller: nobody will take it anymore. you democrats are lying every day. it is disgusting. guest: $500 million was a subsidy to help insurance companies, and unnecessary subsidy for the additional services that the insurance companies were providing. there was simply additional, unnecessary profit for the health insurance companies, and was eliminated and put back into other programs for health care. that happens to be the fact. if you think the health insurance companies need an additional and necessary profit, well, then, you did exactly what

the republicans did and vote against it. wrong policy, unnecessary $500 million a year to the health insurance companies. it was removed, and it was not a cut to the medicare program. not one medicare benefit was cut as a result of the affordable health care. however, the republican budget that passed the house with no democratic votes terminates at medicare for every american that is not yet 55 years of age. if you are 54, had 60 days old, are 54 and a threatu to 60 days old, he will not see medicare any point in your life. -- it will host: this is a premium 8 -- they say it is a premium support system -- guest: it is a termination of

medicare, which guarantees a health benefit to everyone 65 years of age and older in the united states. guaranteed medical insurance program. what republicans are doing is terminating medicare and giving you $6,000 a year and telling you to go buy insurance on your own. go to the private health insurance -- host: might that bring down costs of health care? guest: no, it has nothing to do with bringing down the cost whatsoever. basically reducing the cost to the government, shifting the cost to the individual. if you are less than 55 years of age today, in order to make up the difference you have to set aside $1,313 every month for the next 10 years so that when you become 65, you can afford to buy health insurance policy. that is what this is all about. is about shifting the cost --it

is about shifting the cost from the very wealthy, maintaining the tax cuts for the very wealthy and the oil companies, shifting the costs to seniors. right now $1,300 a month you'd need to set aside. if the republicans become successful in terminating medicare. host: david, jacksonville, florida, democratic caller. caller: i am a 53-year-old democrat and have always been a democrat, but with what is going on with the extension of the six-day period and the war powers act, i really may have a problem voting for president obama again. having said that, with regards to medicare, my question is what would republicans do it if you have a bill on the floor stating that americans would get the exact same medical coverage as they do? what are they pass that? -- would they pass that?

they say, it is like what we get -- guest: actually, on the house floor we had a chance to vote for an amendment that would require that the general public that the exact same policy that the members of congress get rid the republicans voted against that. -- the exact same policy that the members of congress get. the republicans voted against. they are playing a game here, a very bad game for the american public. the termination of medicare. i'm sorry -- you are 53 years of age? you can kiss medicare could buy if republicans get their way. they will throw you to the sharks, the private health insurance companies, and most everybody who is 65 years of age has a pre-existing condition. away, republicans voted to repeal the protections -- by the way, republicans voted to repeal the protections to protect you from the insurance companies who discriminate based on health

status, age, sex, on and on and on. all of those very important protections that you and i and every american have as a result of the affordable health care act would be terminated if the republicans had their way, and then when you become 65, good luck. you are thrown into the sharks, the private health insurance companies. you will be out of luck and you will pay a massive amount of money, if you can get insurance at all. host: the associated press reporting this morning that defense officials said a marine general james cartwright is no longer in the running to be the next chair of the joint chiefs of staff. he had been considered a top candidate. what is your reaction? guest: first i have heard about it. i don't have a reaction. i will get back to my office and figure out what is all about. host: do you know general, right? guest: i do as a witness to the committee. i don't know him personally. host: mary, you are on.

caller: i just wanted to say that everywhere we have ever been in was -- [unintelligible] as far as medicare goes -- no doctors in our area to take medicare or medicaid any more. .'m a disabled nurse i've been a nurse for 30 years. i have an advantage plan. if i did not have the advantage plan with my medicate, i would not make it. i am in the hospitals every six months. guest: i'm not exactly sure what to personal circumstances are, what the doctors are in your area. we do know that the medicaid program which to depend upon would be very significantly reduced by the republican budget. huge, nearly $1 trillion in cuts in medicaid program immediately

-- excuse me, over $700 billion of cuts in the medicaid program. that is going to dramatically affect your ability to get medicaid services. as to whether doctors in your area take medicare or medicaid, they are two different programs and i just don't know. by and large, most doctors take medicare. medicaid often is estate program, and this is a problem in california -- medicaid is operated at a lower rate and many doctors refuse to take medical or medicaid program. it is a different program from medicare. host: congressman, thank you for being here. guest: good to be with you. host: we will give you a news update, and then when we come back, we will turn your attention to this column written in "the washington post" recently. kathy deveny is the life and

money editor for the fiscal times on your screen right now. >> british prime minister david cameron is supporting an alliance with pakistan amid questions about how osama bin laden lived so long there before he was killed by u.s. troops. in a news conference with president obama with london, which has just concluded, mr. cameron said allies must work with pakistan more closely than ever and not turn away, and said a libyan leader muammar gaddafi "must go." a the to the u.s. diplomatic cables says that its directors u.s. diplomatic cables says that directors at pakistani institutions are given anti-american lectures. it's just that anti-american -- it suggests that anti-american sentiment is deeply ingrained in

the mpakistani military. more victims have died in severe storms yesterday and early today. the toll in oklahoma is now 8. two people died and kansas, three in arkansas. nuclear plant safety will be tested by the european union and regulators starting june 1. the stress tests will examine whether atomic power plants in the eu can withstand accident, natural disasters, or terrorist attacks. the tests are a result of the japan nuclear crisis following the march earthquake and tsunami. u.s. businesses cut back orders for heavy machinery, computers, autos and airplanes and april. reducing demand for long-lasting manufactured goods by the largest amount in six months. the commerce department just reported a while ago that orders for durable goods fell 3.8%. the weakness was widespread across a number of industries. it was likely influenced by supply chain disruptions that

stemmed from the japanese earthquake in march. demand for motor vehicles and parts in the industry heavily dependent on japanese component parts saw a decline in orders of 4.4% in april. that is the biggest drop since last august. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> there are three days of the book tv programming this holiday weekend. from the jersey sting, one of the largest federal sting operations in u.s. history. from a book expo america, new releases from jim lehrer, roger larson, andrik michael moore on his upcoming memoir. on "after words," janny scott on the story of barack obama's mother, hosted by "national journal's" major garrett.

c-span2's local content vehicles kicks the city tour this weekend with the booktv events on a c-span2, including an interview with del quentin wilber, and i look at the book industry with local booksellers , and the st. petersburg museum of history, with the first commercial aircraft, and the history of the settlement of angola. the lcv cities tour kicks off this weekend to watch it on c- span2 and c-span3. this weekend on american history to be on c-span 3, "washington post" journalist ben bradlee and bob woodward of watergate. the former policy of president

reagan. and we will visit fort myer, virginia, to learn about the army's oldest active infantry unit and its role in presidential funerals. "washington journal" continues. host: kathy deveny is the life and money editor at "the fiscal times." i showed headline to our viewers of recent column written by one of your colleagues. "the average american family has a lot riding on the current state in washington over whether tax expenditures should be placed on the budget chopping block as part of an effort to reduce the federal deficit." you guys decided to look into this issue. why is the average family have a lot riding on this debate? guest: i think we have a lot

riding on this debate. when we talk about the budget and deficit, we throw around trillion and billions of dollars, and we forget who is on the receiving end of all this, and that is asked, the taxpayers, pretty much every american household. when you talk about eliminating tax expenditures, that is a budget window for tax breaks and credits and deductions -- budget lingo for tax% credits and deductions, and you talked to was something that affects every american household. many other people get tax breaks that they don't even realize. these kinds of the credits are deeply woven into our family finances. it is something often overlooked in the debate. host: "the fiscal times" decided to get an accounting firm to run the numbers. what did you do? guest: we tried to look at an average family. we took a family get had a median income of the $61,000, middle-class, not too often, living in the suburbs of maryland, reasonably high tax

area. we look at how the family finances would fare if we eliminated all of these government tax expenditures. no one is really talking about that, but for the sake of argument, let's talk about getting rid of all of them, the mortgage deduction, child care credits, the deduction for health premiums. if you eliminated all of those deductions, this family would end up paying six times as much in federal taxes. they would pay almost $6,000 from about $800. that is a big increase. for any family, that would be a significant difference. host: we want our viewers to call in and give us your comments, your questions on this topic. let's begin with a big home ownership tax credits that people are probably familiar with. he took a look at all three, the big three wants --. you took a look at all three, the big 31 spirit $136 billion annually is what taxpayers save

in general as you look at the ownership tax credits. the lost revenue -- that is lost revenue to the federal government. if you break down by the mortgage interest deductions, the savings are about $99 billion, savings to the taxpayer, lost revenue. can you talked about that a little bit more? guest: we are talking about big numbers here. if you took away all these tax expenditures, the government would realize about $1 trillion more in revenue. we're talking about very big numbers, and we have a serious deficit crisis and we have to do with it -- have to deal with it, but we have to be thoughtful about how we do that and think about ways these things affect people. most people pay the mortgage deduction, and that can really mean a lot. there are other tax credits in it homeowners. there is the property tax credit, if you live in a state like new york or washington. it can mean a lot to you as a homeowner.

there are caps on capital gains if you sell your house. if you are an individual and you realize a profit of $250,000, capital gains is capped at that, twice as much for a couple. significant savings for families out that even the biggest tax expenditures. the mortgage and property taxes are the ones that people are familiar with, but many of us the tax credits don't even think about. all credits for the premiums be paid to our employers for will -- winter health credits for the premise we pay for our employers for health insurance. this is the largest tax expenditure in terms of lost revenue for the government, but it's also an important credit to many people around the country. many people don't even think about it. their premiums are taken out of the pretax income and it looks like all taxes to them, but those premiums that you take

your employer for health insurance, out of your pretax income. that reduces your tax burden and that is a subsidy the government is giving you to buy health insurance. that is a big thing, also an important thing. if you eliminated that suddenly, perhaps some people would refuse to do that, they would opt out of the program and not get all the trends. what would happen to those people? it would fall back on the government in some way or another. about 60% of people under 65, people who do not qualify for medicare yet, get insurance through their employers. we are talking about many people across the country. this is the kind of tax break that a lot of people don't even realize or think about. host: break down what "the fiscal times" found. 60% of americans younger than 65, $174 billion in annual lost revenue. the average annual premium for family insurance is $15,000, and

it typically covers about 70% of the premium, and that the employer gets the tax break as well. guest: yes, the employer gets a tax bite on the portion they pay. for the average family, you are talking about a $10,000 difference. host: 2 people factor that into their compensation. -- do people factor that into their compensation or did they think about their health benefits as well? guest: i think many just don't think about that. again, that is the kind of tax but that many families overlook. we don't even realize we're getting every week in our paycheck. host: our talked this morning with kathy deveny it's the cost of eliminating credit. kalamazoo, michigan, you are on the air. caller: i had one comment and i guess the question. the tax structure -- what i read

in the paper -- we have so many deductions and credits and this and that that something like 40% or 50% of the public don't pay federal income tax. my second comment -- do we really want to be -- we are basically subsidizing housing, home ownership. we have a far more percentage of homeowners in this country than any industrial country. is it really wise policy to subsidize a large home under industry, even second homes and things like that? guest: you make two very good points. you are absolutely right. 47% of americans paid no federal income tax. we talk about the benefits the rich have gotten over the past few years, but the minute classes benefited as well, especially under the stimulus plans obama put forward, either

because of low income or tax credits and benefits, about 47% pay no federal income tax cred. there are very few americans that they zero in tax, because the alternate local income taxes --, we all pay local income taxes, excise taxes, state and local taxes we all pay. there are payroll taxes, other kinds of the federal taxes that are not income taxes that we all pay. for those of us who are professionals, that tends to be what we think most, and it seems to be unfair that there are so many people that don't pay them. we will probably see that changing over the next couple of years somewhat as we wrestle with the deficit problem. your second point is also correct. these tax subsidies to homeowners are meant to encourage homeownership. now, about 2/3 of americans on their own home, which is a very high number, although it is about the same as canada, where they do not have that kind of mortgage deduction.

yes, it has been historically one of our priorities to encourage home ownership, and i think, again, is something we should examine. these are large numbers we're talking about and we are in a crisis situation and maybe all this has to be examined. it is a very large and complex ecosystem, and trimming or cutting one part of it ripples through the entire system. we just have to do that -- host: maryland, independent caller. caller: my husband it made $79,000 last year. they took at $18,000, a federal tax, everything else. my lan taxes in maryland are $32. before i even say my paycheck, $21,000 are gone. you want to take away might deduction? guest: i am absolutely not saying at one to take away your

home election, but this is one of the threads -- i am absolutely not saying all i want to take away your home deduction, but this is one of the threads running through all of the plans. we need to be very thoughtful about how we do it, because just like for you, this a really big and important part of people's family planning. host: lewis, republican. caller: in general, i am for lowering the amount of taxes people pay, but as the previous best was saying, the tax breaks to the wealthy -- it frustrates me when republican leaders say they want to cut taxes but they only really talk about cutting taxes for the super-rich. the information you are putting out here is going to maybe get people the impression that, oh, you know, the tax breaks are the

important. but the tax breaks for regular people and the extremely wealthy are completely different situations. guest: i think you are absolutely right. not all tax breaks are treated equally. for instance, the mortgage deduction, which we are talking a lot about, benefits people more who are in the higher tax brackets. the higher your marginal tax rate, the more these deductions are worth to you. if you have a bigger mortgage or a second home, you are getting more for that. maybe that is something we need to look at when we talk about reducing the deficit bro. again, i agree with you completely. in a lot of people are dependent on these kind of tax breaks, particularly the health insurance break. we have to be careful about how we cut them, because they will affect middle-class families as well as wealthy families. again, i am just saying this is a complicated ecosystem and when we mess about with one part of it, it affects another part.

because of the partisan nature of the debate over this, i think the taxpayers are getting a little lost in it. host: greg in north carolina, independent. caller: i am a middle-class person, and i pay almost $40,000 in federal taxes this year, which hurts. i did a little bit of research, and i am looking more closely at a flat tax, which eliminates all the complicated tax code that we have not got a lot of european countries have gone toward a flat tax -- eliminate all that complicated tax code that we have. a lot of european countries have gone toward a flat tax. this country does not have a competitive tax code compared to the rest of the world. it is time to take a close look, and it does not have to be the flat tax that dick armey came out with, but something that

more closely resembles a flat tax would help this country out in the long run, and eventually, we could probably get out of the debt that we're in now. guest: the flat tax comes up in pretty much every election, and i am not sure it is politically viable, but you are raising an important point, which is that the tax code over the last few years -- actually, since the turn of the century -- has become immensely complicated, loaded up with these publications and exceptions. the tax code at the turn of the center was 400 pages, and i think in 2011 was 70,000 pages. eliminating some of these tax breaks -- and we need to do this very carefully -- would simplify that. i am talking more about individual taxes, but you make a good point, that people and companies want to pay as little as they can come up with the most part, i will behave accordingly -- and will behave accordingly so that they can

improve their own situations. one of the reasons why eliminating some of these tax expenditures is coming up over and over again that is because it would have the added benefit of the simplifying the tax code. host: kathy deveny i want to show our viewers what "the fiscal times" came up with with retirement savings. $135 billion in annual lost revenue because of the tax breaks, 55 million americans participate in a 401ks and ira's, and 7% is the average contribution of pretax pate, cutting the tax bill by 22%. guest: again, this is another one of those tax benefits that we get that we don't really think about. every time you contribute to your 401k program to your retirement savings, as you get a tax break. it always your taxable income. in some cases, all those expenditures and push you into a

lower bracket. it can have a big impact on family. it is interesting something we want people to do, saving for retirement. a limiting those deductions -- eliminating those deductions perhaps limits savings for retirement, and we have people relying more on social security and as for the consequences, as some ways just kicking the can down the road. we have to pay for that somehow. host: did the fiscal commission or president obama's budget or ply and's budget take a look at tax breaks through time and -- budget to- paul ryan's give a tax breaks for retirement savings? guest: every plan is a different obama's plan looked at eliminating iraq's for the higher income brackets. other -- eliminating breaks for

the higher income brackets. the obama plan looks at eliminating the deductions, the kinds of deductions like the 401k and mortgage deduction, for the people in the highest tax brackets. other economists have come up with plans that would limit the percentage of your income that you can take a break to either 2% or 5%, and that would be across the board. for some folks, more equitably distributed. pretty much everyone is looking at these tax breaks and some way. host: redding, pennsylvania, susan, democratic caller. caller: good morning, ladies. i just want to say, thank you, kathy, for everything you do. the more we know, the better. i cannot say thank you enough. guest: thank you. caller: i appreciate your knowledge. with income down, real-estate, everything coming in to the

federal and state government, the money that is coming in that is going down, we can no longer afford our communal infrastructure. we are going to have cuts, no doubt, federal and state. my question would be how long do you foresee this pain? do you see this 10 years? how long out? my second question would be, jamie dimon said every seven years we seem to have a recession, a bit. how much longer would it take for the federal government to do something to try to control the hedonistic behavior on wall street so that we don't suffer this anymore? i'm calling from pennsylvania, and my property tax, i am just purely talking property-tax, is wh thousand dollars -- is $12,000. guest: that is a big number. we have been mostly focusing on federal income tax and not talking about things like

property taxes and local taxes, which, for most people, add up to a big chunk of the family budget. i wish i could tell you when the federal government would get a handle on excesses' on wall street, but i really cannot. i am not sure anyone has the answer for you. there are hearings going on right now with elizabeth warren and consumer protection, but that is that tackling the broader problem, i wish i could tell you there is a specific timetable for curbing the excesses, but i'm not sure there is. host: shannon, republican. caller: real quickly, the gentleman who talked about the flat tax -- the corporate tax break for companies is only 17%, not 36%. the average american pays 20%. my question is, for a tax credit that we do not get, that i do not understand, when you file your income tax at the end of the year, you can only claim

over 7.5% of your income for medical expenses. someone that makes $60,000 a year has $7,000 worth of medical expenses, but they can only deduct the amount over 7.5% over $5,000 as their income. why can't deduct all the medical expenses? guest: you know, we're just talking about policy priorities. i agree that medical expenses does not seem like very much. when we talk about cutting expenditures overall, it is hard to see that we will get an expansion in that area, although, again, you make a very good point for your family. it is a big deal. again, everybody likes their tax deductions. i certainly do. talking about cutting them is a difficult and emotional issue. this is a very complicated

issue. one of the things we have to realize is that the cost of doing nothing is also incredibly high. right now we have a $1.40 trillion deficit. that means our debt is $14 trillion, according to conservative estimates, we get absolutely nothing, and i think i mean adding to bush tax cuts expire and just chugging along with our current policy, we will at $7 to lead to the debt over the next few years -- we will add $7 to into the debt over the next few years. we have to be very careful -- $7 trillion but to the debt over the next two years. we have to be very careful. we are talking about property taxes a while ago, how those were rising as local governments were strapped. to take the example of how these kinds of changes could go beyond the families -- if you

eliminated the mortgage tax deduction and discouraged home ownership, or encouraged bit less, what would happen to the already devastated the housing market? i am not sure that many people would be able to wholeheartedly endorse something that -- it is a very complicated issue. host: st. louis, missouri, randy. caller: i have a question for kathy. host: you have got to turn the television down, all right? you know what? i will put you on hold and we will come back to you. roberts, republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning, kathy. i agree with you that we need to do something carefully and forcefully about how the tax code could be adjusted, doing

something around the severe deficit we have right now. but i would like to ask you a question to take consideration of top past actions that impacted the distribution of wealth for taxpayers. i would like to use the example of the amt, which has not been adjusted for many decades. and income earner in my family, we make -- looking at the whole country and the demographics, we make a lot of money, but at the end of the day -- guest: you would be considered affluent by most standards. caller: but i get hit by amt, so i maximize the deductions that i can take, but at the end of the day, i probably pay about 10%. if you lay that against -- an example in the news recently by general electric paying a zero tax, who advocates for the middle-class? it seems like we carry the disproportionate burden of

paying for people beneath us who need help, and i don't disagree with that, but i look at where the tax dollars actually go. who advocates for us? how do we do it carefully at a way that does not create another ratcheting up over time? that is my question. guest: you know, i think i am absolutely right. a lot of people have a turnaround $250,000 as the market will become affluent households, and that is affluent compared to the average median income. but when you live in a high-tax area, you have large family obligations, i am sure that you think a lot about money and how you are going to pay for things. it does not feel like money is no issue to you. i think you are right, we need to consider these things very carefully there will be continuing debates on tax brackets for the highest income earners. there has been a lot of talk about whether we should let the

bush tax cuts expired so that the highest bracket would go back up to 39%. again, we are a long way from the consensus on the best way handle this. a lot of this has gotten lost in partisan bickering. those of us on the receiving end of the budget are not being heard. you make a very good point. host: columbia, south carolina, and attended c -- independent caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning, ladies. i was as before supporter years ago -- a steve forbes supporter years ago. guest: so you support the flat tax? caller: no, i support the fair tax. guest: all right. caller: back then it was 13,005 $1 for individual, and a family of four, 30-something thousand,

with no deductions. that sounded like the tax system we should have. this flat tax that people are proposing now, they got all kind of gimmicks and that thing that says if you are a poor person making some much money -- it makes no difference what you may ke -- but you are spending in the grocery store and buying a car and so on, they send you a check. that is going to cost a lot of money. guest: you know, again, i think the flat tax is probably not very politically feasible, but one of the threads running through all the budget programs and plans that are out there right now -- today there is the deficit council going on where they are looking at several plans for ways to do this. former president bill clinton is the keynote speaker.

the last american president to preside over a balanced budget. i think that one of the common at themes running through all of the plans is to simplify the tax cuts and eliminating some of the deductions, few were excesses and loopholes. again, we just have to think carefully about how we do that and how we get there, because we are talking about tax breaks that affect a lot of people across the economy that would have a very broad it will fax through other kinds of markets, like charitable deductions. that is a deduction that probably does benefit will be people more -- wealthy people more than lower-income people. that does not mean that the were income people are not generous and do not give to charities, but they do not deduct them from their taxes. those people generate a very large percentage of charitable

deductions -- charitable contributions, excuse me -- in the country, about 50%. some of those go to museums and art institutions and things like that, but a lot of that goes to helping the poor, medical facilities. if you took away the charitable deductions, who ends up paying for that? in some cases maybe it is state and local governments, who are already cash-strapped. i certainly agreed that the tax code could be simplified, but we have to think very carefully about how we do that. host: kathy mentioned that former president bill clinton sitting down with the peterson foundation. we are covering that right now on c-span3. georgia, anthony, democratic caller. caller: i would like to explain to the gentleman, taxpayers are forced with taxes they should not have to pay.

the government says if you are an illegal immigrant in this country -- i don't care if you are black, white, hispanic, whatever -- you have to pay your share of taxes. they go to school, is it free. -- it is free. the superintendent told me that the government says we have to give them education. i asked, who pays for it? she said the taxpayers. we are taxed enough. host: ok, we will leave it there. i think we got what you are talking about. kathy deveny. guest: well, again, illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. that is a separate policy issue. i guess it personally, i feel there is a membership price to living in the united states. we all need to pay something for

our fair share to support the benefits we all enjoy -- national security, infrastructure, education. but also as somebody -- i would hardly consider myself ridge, but does better than many people -- i would hardly consider myself rich, but does better than many people, i need to contribute to the welfare of others. there is a certain price of admission, which is not to say that we cannot make it more equitable and reduce the burden on people who really need help. i think there is a price of admission. host: kathy, when you look at the issue of tax credits that are widely popular, the child tax credit, how does that work and is there a discussion about eliminating that? guest: the child-care credit? host: right. i'm sorry, the child-care credit . guest: i am sure that some of

these proposals take into account. it is not been a big issue in many of the major ones. the big expenditures that we are talking about -- the homeowner breaks, mortgage, capital gains cap, property-tax, a health- insurance premiums -- those are the largest ones. host: what about the impact of charitable donations? guest: again, i think that is a very complicated infrastructure. if you eliminate that, it seems like an easy to make, -- easy, to make, but again, wealthy individuals contribute about 53% of the budget for charitable organizations. again, all of these changes without broad ripple effects to the economy -- would have

brought ripple a fax to the economy. it depends on with your party is that people should have access to -- with your priorities that people should have access to that kind of art. i think it is a nice thing, but it whether it is a broader policy issue. but hospitals, food shelves, those are funded to a large degree by wealthy individuals. if we cut those deductions, i'm not saying that all but stopped contributing, but some of them would. the reason we have that tax credit is to encourage those. it would be pushed out to cash- strapped local governments. host: montana. caller: hello, good morning. host: morning. we are listening. caller: my question is, if we eliminate the mortgage tax deduction, how do you think that

will affect the building industry and housing industry, which is already down to nothing? in montana, our unemployment is unbelievable because of that. guest: right. well, you raise a very good point to the building industry feels it would have a disastrous consequences. as i mentioned earlier, housing prices in the united states have been sliding steadily for 37 quarters -- 57 quarters. that is tough, and it affects many communities. the real estate industry is certainly feels it would be detrimental to the business. there are some arguments that say that the housing market in canada has not suffered as much. they don't have the kind of tax credit. i am not sure they are completely comparable markets. i would have to say that it definitely would have an impact. host: st. louis, missouri, donna, independent. caller: a couple things.

can you hear me? host: we can. caller: i can tell you a dozen things to cut in the budget that over 70% of americans would favor. but the real problem is our free trade treaty with china, which i don't believe you have mentioned. that has cost us millions of jobs and trillions in revenue. that is the problem. we would not be fighting about all these things if anybody had the guts to address this issue, but they all get so much money for the rich and powerful from their -- so much money from the rich and powerful for the campaigns that nothing is going to get done, and you know it. guest: again, everyone has a different opinion on that, but i don't think that is really a significant factor in the overall tax debate. i think entitlements obviously, the biggest area, the thing that we spend most on. also, defense. we need to look at some of those issues that hadn't previously

off the table in the budget debate. -- that had been previously off the table and the budget date. host: let's talk about the deficit commission. whether talk about keeping things in place for those who make a certain amount of money -- in other words, means testing? guest: absolutely. you are talking about the deductions, correct? host: right. guest: there are several different proposals for how to contain this. nobody is saying we should scrap all of these deductions and tax breaks. but at a powerful effect on families and the time -- would have aat powerful effect on families and the economy. people of, i believe, 20% would get less benefit that they do now. even that plan does not eliminate them completely. other plans talk about capping

the actual tax savings, not just the deductions, but what he relies on the tax savings. 2%, 5%, that would be across the board at all income levels. there are various proposals, but none of them look at getting rid of all the tax credits across the board. host: we have a few minutes left with kathy deveny. republican and alexandria, virginia. caller: thank you for it c-span. my question is whether or not any discussions take into account the different costs of living in different parts of the country. my sister lives in houston, i live in northern virginia. we are both professionals, and with our husbands, our incomes are about the same, but her debt is much further in houston that it is in north virginia. we are in industries where it is

relatively fixed r. as my husband gets to the income level where it is apparently the evil people that need to be punished, i wonder if any of these taken to account that the cost of living in different places. i am grateful that we both have jobs and i don't want to sound selfish, but it is a totally different story for some on being at income level even in richmond, virginia. i wonder if that ever comes into the debate. guest: you are absolutely right, because it makes a huge difference where we live. no, it does not. in the federal tax debate, it is not considered at all. we don't just take federal income-tax. we all pay local taxes, and they vary widely across the country in terms of property taxes, excise taxes. if you live in chicago, you pay more on its sales taxes and then on the service tax in terms of

everything you buy. you live in a particularly high tax area, also expensive. housing prices are expensive, food prices are probably higher. some of the least expensive markets to some of the most expensive markets in the united states, the cost of living can vary by 120%. that means if you make $100,000 in a small town in alabama, you need to make to get a $20,000 near washington to have the same standard of living. -- you need to make $220,000 in washington to have the same standard of living. we're not talking about is in the debate over taxes, and you're making a good point. it is something that gets lost in the debate. host: texas, you are on with kathy deveny. caller: it seems to me that we subsidize almost everybody. we subsidize poor people for food, housing, child care. we subsidize farmers. these evil pe