later, the director of the pension benefit guarantee corporation explains why the corporation is part of the 2012 budget proposal would receive authority to charge an additional premium to creditworthy sponsors. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ >> good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this monday, june 6, 2011. in the white house, president obama and his national security team will hold a monthly meeting on afghanistan and pakistan. and on the campaign trail as one person will announce his presidency. you can catch that live on c- span at 11:00 eastern time.

jobs into the economy are dominating news and political coverage this morning. we want to look at a piece about whether american workers are qualified to take available jobs. the industry put heat on schools to meet certain needs. in employers work with schools to boost skills -- should employers work with schools to boost skills? you can call in at the numbers at the bottom of the screen. you can also e-mail us, and we are on twitter. let's look at this story in the wall street journal.

what do you think? should employers do more hands- on to work with schools to make sure graduates are getting the schools to be in the workforce? let's check out our democrats line. stacy, are you with us? i think we lost her. you can give us a call and send

us e-mail at tweets on this topic. the national association of manufacturers is leading a drive to establish standardized curriculum across the u.s., so students can qualify for certification in industrial skills such as cutting metal and plastic. hampton, va., democrats line. caller: businesses should assist in education -- my problem is this. i am looking at the third world

and african nations. that is the same way -- you have to pay money for kids to go to school. no one can send their kids to school, because there are no jobs. businesses should help in assisting finance. we need to pay for schooling with money we get from the taxes as well as the lottery we have here. congress should leave our school system alone when it comes to budget cuts. host: did you have success with your education, getting a job? caller: i have three master's degrees.

this system has not done anything but send jobs away from here. people need to get education so when the market opens up again, they will be ready to take jobs. if we keep cutting them and causing these vouchers, we will not educated people at all. host: were the masters degrees to help you get a job but your personal interest? caller: my personal interest. i finally retired. i am safe. looking at the children, they do not have any way of getting out of poverty or going forward if they do not have an education. host: sounds like you got your first degree based on the job market. caller: business, and human resource management, and years

ago, the jobs were across the water. host: independent scholar in connecticut. -- caller in connecticut. caller: i think we have crossed the line these days. we have corporations taking over schools. we have billions of dollars coming into our schools. we are falling behind. china does not test their students internationally. they pick shanghai. i do not buy one argument, but i do buy the argument that we are spending trillions of dollars in the wrong way. that is what no child but behind was spent. i want to focus on supporting schools not closing them. host: during kids for the job

market, giving them skills? caller: i want kids that are honest, dependable, that show up on time. i am not certain that they will do that if they have certain test scores. i have a janitorial business. host: las vegas, nevada. caller: i sure do. there was a job service back in the 1980's. china had an annual wage 7 -- several thousand dollars years ago. they do not teach you anything about keeping a job. one person was 25 years old and only had a few jobs documented.

managerial, leadership, customer service skills. it is very important. that is why i called. host: we have a tweed. -- tweet. looking back at the wall street journal story that inspired us to talk about this -- an initiative launched in 2007. virginia, democrat caller. welcome. caller: this is a job for employers and the non sector to

get involved. students that do not do as well, they are not likely to be college-bound, should be directed in the right direction for jobs out there, trade skills, electrical engineering, things like that. host: it seems like some of those skills are necessary for some of the trades you are talking about. caller: some students are likely to go on to get a degree at the university should be pointed in the right direction by the employers and the non-profit sector being able to say, this is the training you need. we should not let these kids fend for themselves not understanding what is there for them at community colleges.

host: let's lake -- take a look at numbers from the "wall street journal." here are math scores. shanghai china is up there. the u.s. down below. tampa, fla., independent line. caller: a couple of calls ago, the lady was talking about the specific ones for specific needs should help pay for the kids going into their line of work. when the cost of education is so high in america, it is just like

anything else. foreign companies -- countries send their students to our schools to get the best education, which they pay for, and they go back and grabbed jobs that we could be giving our own children. they go to kids that come over and do not have to pay anything. our corporations are not getting behind our kids. in 1976 or 1978 here in florida, i voted for the lottery, because they said all of that would go for schools to get computers when they were first coming out. and to make the school's high tech, especially elementary and secondary schools. the last 35 years, we have

schools with the palm trees, high fences, beautiful agricultural surrounding it. nobody is learning anything. host: here are the numbers to call. if you want to weigh in on whether employers should boost skills, is that the irresponsibility of school districts or community colleges? perhaps you think it is no one's responsibility but one's own. let's take a look at a tweet. concerned about the basic

standards being set. jack jennings said employers have a right to be worried that the u.s. is falling behind. much of the emphasis is on community college and vocational schools, because they are affordable and can quickly turn out job candidates.

oklahoma, republicans line. caller: i am a retired instructor at a vocational technical school. when industry gets involved, it requires careful management by a very savvy administration of the school or industry will seize public funds and use them for personal training programs. it is a very complicated problem, but it is something that needs to be managed with experience. one of the things that

vocational technical schools can't do -- can do is get new people from industries, who know generally what the requirements are for preparation for employment. georgia.'s go to caller: we were told that we had a lottery that the schools were being improved. they are trying to get as many students enrolled. to do so, they are dropping the standards. if you ask management, they will tell you that this is a perfect example of how the democrats sound so good and sweet but every policy, but many come back to haunt us in the process.

just like lyndon johnson and the many programs that kept the father out of the house. you do not have the dual system of parents hanging around and watching what they're students are doing and working at night. every problem we tend to have come to some extent, you can look at an underlying democratic cause that is what lies at the beginning. now it is amazing how it was more difficult years ago. now it is a problem getting the kids in the class by dropping the standards. if they keep giving money like that -- one colored deplored america for cutting education. -- caller deplored america for

cutting education. it is not about the dollars. host: here is a question for you to insert this morning. there were comments about the recent job numbers. >> i said last month when we had an excellent jobs report, 100,000 above expectations, last friday it came in below expectations, do not make too much of any one job report, because they are highly variable. you want to look at the trend to get a more accurate barometer. the overall direction is some flow from the stiff winds of gas prices from the defense in japan or europe. overall in the last six months, we have added 1 million jobs in

the private sector. host: that was yesterday talking about the recent job numbers. the washington times this morning say democrats fire back at the gop on the unemployment numbers. we are asking you this morning, should employers work with schools to boost skills and cater to what students are learning to what they will need when they start looking for recruits. we have this storing coming to us from brian watson. some cannot find job candidates

to higher, even though there are millions looking for jobs. let's go to san antonio, texas on the independent line. what do you think? caller: i do not. what we really need to do is get all businesses out of public education. [unintelligible] in public schools, we have to use public money to train the

children, it takes more time to make a shift when the economy or the concept changes. we are not getting good american service -- citizens anymore, because the public schools are not training chosen to be american citizens. public schools should be used to train in democracy. those companies should go to community colleges or form their own job training programs. host: the u.s. chamber of commerce came out with a report. transforming higher education to greater innovation. let's check out the executive summary, which says higher

education has not changed its basic structure model, because it has not been forced to do so. memphis, tenn., democratic caller. caller: i would like to throw out a question. i have never gotten a definitive answer in a capitalistic society, how does it flourish without someone being exploited?

if everyone gets an education, no one gets exploited. i am asking someone to answer that question for me. host: providence, rhode island, independent line. caller: employers should work with schools to boost education. in the northeast, employer unions are very powerful. -- employee unions are very powerful. there is a big fight with a charter school over the few dollars they are trying to

garner to stay in business. these union groups are fighting tooth and nail for every scrap and dollar that our tax dollars are providing for education. until that political union power is broken, especially in the northeast, i do not think we will get improvement in public schools. i think with corporations, we know where their interests lie. they are completely self -- selfish, and we know that. i think these employee unions and politicians back them up. host: d.c. opportunities for unions to work with schools to get the next generation of the work force? caller: i think there're so idea

is power here in the northeast. i think they could care less about whether our kids are getting properly educated or not. until that is broken, they will never work with anyone who is going to remove the power from them. host: a comment from twitter. technology is cutting down the number of people in his shop. louisville, kentucky, a democrat caller. caller: i have a few comments. when i was in college, the teachers are getting better.

a lot better. people need to get good jobs in what they are interested in. s, sophomorecollege' or junior year, the young people would come in, the corporations, these big businesses for the students to observe and help them out. it was a low average pay, but it still benefited the students, where they would be more prepared when they went out into the field. i thought it was a great idea. that is what i did also. it helped a lot.

that is my comment today. one more thing, okay? do not cut me off. they are laying off some many teachers. i think that is bad. that is why our unemployment rate went up, because so many people, these governors and things like that, they started laying off so many officers, firemen, and especially your teachers. we do not need that. that is all i have to say. host: looking at the political implications of the jobs and the economy. republicans have pointed out that no president has been reelected with unemployment rate so high.

let's take a listen to what another republican had to say. haley barbour talking on cbs "face the nation." >> while this administration has been great for wall street, main street has not gotten out of the last recession. new york banks have done great. host: in durham, n.c., independent line, weighing on whether or not employers should help boost skills in schools.

caller: my son after he got rid of high school through his vocational education took all of his court classis, he took one class of welding for four years. he was in high school. now he is a certified welder with four certifications. he works every day and makes $20 an hour, if he stays busy. he works in different parts of the state. it keeps him going. it is between the child and the parent. i am glad he has graduated. he is done. now he is doing his part of trying to do the right thing.

thanks. host: education must be pursued on an individual basis. that is a comment that body just made. asheville, north carolina, republican caller. caller: i see several things going on. you heard a lady called up earlier saying teachers are getting better. here are a few facts that to be viewed that. -- that refutes that. less than half of all teachers at colleges are professionally accredited. many teaching colleges are worthless, unless you are part of the union. it used to be -- i worked in

manufacturing for 20 years. i just lost my job recently. if he started at a company at the bottom, you could work away up through the ranks. the company would invest in you, the individual. now companies will not accept workers, even at the bottom, without some kind of a prior training. companies that wanted job specific training would invest in the workers themselves, rather than try to become part of these public-private partnerships we see at the schools. i think part of the reason for that is the typical american worker has priced himself out of the labour market. go to india with highly skilled people working for $10 or $12 an hour and being perfectly content with that.

i have heard stories of people who will not work on a form -- farm for less than $40,000 a year. host: you have to take into account the cost of living, depending on where you live. caller: that is a direct result of government policy. and that is a direct result of people demanding more and more services from the government, demanding more regulation of industry, some of which is highly unnecessary, which affects business bottom line so they cannot afford to hire american workers anymore. that is a fact of life. host: here is something coming to us from twitter. wisconsin, independent line.

caller: i have been in education for 22 years. what i noticed in my school and when employers or technical colleges came back, what students need to know is how to read, write, do basic math skills. they have asked us to teach students how to communicate with one another, how to work in a cooperative way. if students walked out of school with those kinds of skills, i think they will be employed. one friend has been teaching at a technical college for 20 years. he said, i need kids who know how to read, write, the basic math skills. i can teach them how to weld. they need to know how to communicate with other people. employers should support those programs to make sure our students are reading and writing.

they can send them in to do -- send employees in it to do service work. host: 1 comment from twitter appreciates something said earlier. to florida, independent -- should employers work with schools to boost the skills of those seeking jobs after they graduate? caller: the last caller stole my thunder. our businesses can come in and interview in the schools and tell people what is out there so the kids have goals. the community colleges and technical skirls get involved.

-- skills get involved. we are cutting special programs and other education. that is the wrong thing to do. republicans want to cut services. other states are showing a lack of wanting to support our public education system. they want to go into the different charter schools and the cyber schools, and i think we are losing the basic assistance of public education, which is reading, writing, but social skills and then go on to technical schools. host: at me get your reaction to

this from twitter. should those be included in your ideal school curriculum? caller: yes. we should stop facing more religion into schools. that belongs in the home. reading, writing, arithmetic, showing how to apply them to what you do working simple job skills, home cooking. host: independent scholar in pittsburgh. -- caller in pittsburgh. caller: employers should on a limited basis. schools should have a program

once a year where employers will come in and speak to students about what is required to work with them. the problem is students are not learning the way they should. they should teach students to listen to themselves as they write. american students speak better than they write, because they do not listen to themselves. they get ahead of themselves. some teachers are not as well- trained as they should be. the problem with students in schools is if you have a math problem to solve, you have to use a special process that was created by a group of people. some people learn in different ways.

they can improve it if they are corrected. because of that, you will have a lot of problems. employers at schools would be to controlling and students cannot learn the way they should. host: here is one comment. our attention to politics for a moment. one pennsylvania official says he is running for president.

a story in the new york times looks at former senator and his plan to run for president. we are going to be following his announcement today at 11:00 on c-span. you can get more affirmation on the our website at c-span.org.

he will make his official presidential announcement later on today. looking at more political stories. the "question imposed" looks at michelle bachman and sarah palin. -- washington post" looks at michele bachman and sarah palin .

other stories in politic news that sarah palin was on fox news yesterday. in the utah, there may be a bid for the seat of orrin hatch. that story coming to us from the "washington times." what should businesses to when it comes to the workplace and getting prospective employees ready? should they boost skills and be in the education system? let's go to south carolina, where mary joins us on the democratic line. caller: what they do here in our

school district is they call it chatelin. the students get a chance to go to different jobs -- chatelin. shadowing. the students get a chance to go to different jobs to see how they work. they can come back to class, and each student discusses what they learned and how they feel about that particular business. it gives them a chance to say, this is what i want to do, because i have learned how it works. host: they can experience it for themselves. caller: exactly.

that is the best way for a child to go out into the business world for themselves, rather than just learning the skills in class. you need to see how that particular business works. host: looking at a main story in the "usa today" this morning. it looks at the jobless rate and housing issues. it wonders what the numbers will be like as he heads toward reelection. here are the numbers in recent polls.

it talks about the effects of the raid and killing of osama bin laden and if that has changed things or not. these are numbers from a recent poll taken from usa today and gallup. the edwards case puts pressure on the justice department. we will be watching that unfold as time goes on. the "wall street journal" has a piece about the major shift in the war on cancer.

it is a shift on how drugs are developed and patients are treated. they are faster and more effective than other medicines. "the new york times" looks at a big story on the international front. options for afghanistan. the national security team is considering troop reductions in afghanistan that will be steeper than even a few weeks ago. the protests following israeli gunfire at the border. more news about what is happening in the middle east and north africa. let's get back to our question on the republican line answering the question on whether or not employers should work with schools to boost skills. caller: the schools in our area are pretty good. the bigger employers will spend

-- send people to help education. mitch daniels is on the ball. he has done a lot in the education system in our schools. he has a voucher system, which does away with a lot of the legacy problem. they are able to work with the school does not raise the education. the people in indiana, once this system gets going good, will really appreciate it. some people in the inner cities have problems with education.

they could do a lot better if they just moved out. or in just as easy to be poure some areas banned the inner city, and the school system is a lot better. [unintelligible] host: evanston, illinois, democrats line. caller: if our politicians would stop trying to get every penny of the tax payer dollars to big businesses, perhaps we could put more money in the schools and help cover children get better educated. host: what would that help with and how would it change things?

caller: every time a business comes here in illinois, our government is willing to privatize. perhaps he gets money from the company, but the schools do not. i have a grandson in school. we are lucky if we can get a book. they are sent home with pieces of paper that has been copied out of a book. i would try to review things they have done before, but they do not have a book. host: looking at other news stories, "the new york times" has a piece looking at the situation that unfolded in new york state where a young boy was

killed and of looking at the institution that helps taking care of the disabled in america. protests occurred yesterday after the president of yemen left the country for medical treatment. the imf is offering a $3 billion loan to shore up post mubarak egypt. take a look at the editorials from the papers. laura bush has a piece in the "wall street journal." she talks about ocean frontiers as being a place that the national parks may make inroads. she speaks about how oceans should be more protected than ever. scott pattison will join us

talking about how states are doing in the economic climate. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> each year, congress works to pass its 12 bills. they have started work on the first two. you can follow their progress with easy to find information about your elected officials, daily schedules, a committee hearings.

s at c-sional chronicle's a span.org. >> the communicators on c-span2 is tonight. >> you are watching c-span bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning is to attack washington journal" connecting you with politicians, journalists, and elected officials. we have the supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, see our signature interview program with the "communicator's", "newsmakers", and "q&a."

c-span, washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: the executive director of the national state budget scott pattison, what is the good the nearest guest:? after two years of declines -- what is the good news? guest: and improving economy. -- an improving economy. we are still below pre where were we were previous recession in terms of tax revenues. -- below where we were in the

previous recession in terms of tax revenues. host: guest: i think a lot of citizens will be frustrated when they see a report like this rolling. bills are coming in more. i liken it to a family where you may have gotten a nice tax refund and decided to go to disney world. the other spouse says we cannot. the bills are coming in, and we have to pay them. medicaid and health care bills. host: what game changer is medicated turning into for many states? guest: it provides health care for many individuals. they provide it for lower income

individuals and it provides nursing home care. a significant portion of that is paid for by the state. we have a growing elderly population and health care costs, more money is going to go to health care, even though more money is coming in through tax collections. host: here is a statement. how are state budgeting for medicaid and where a day -- but pockets are they reaching into to pay for this? guest: if you cut one place so you can pay for something else, it causes consequences. what you are singing because of the stimulus funds for medicaid or the extra funds are ending

along with higher enrollment, and not more money going to medicaid and health care. they have to go to other areas like k through 12 spending to get money -- we expect a $15 billion increase for state spending on medicaid and a $2.5 billion decrease for catered 12 at the same time. host: you can join the conversation by: the numbers at the bottom of your screen. let's get to the phones, ohio, democratic caller. caller: i would like to --

remember what happened over there in europe today some 69 years ago. my question is about the state lottery. we have a pretty sizable lottery here. every day, people are spending millions and millions of dollars, if not more. it was supposed to go to the schools. the last session we had, we were talking about funding schools. i want to know where that money is going. i know it is not going to these goals. can you answer me that? guest: lotteries bring in millions to states. it is still a small portion for most state budgets as a percentage.

the money coming in is not compared to the other tax collections such as personal income tax. even if you are getting more money in, the problem we are having is there is only so much money coming in. the problem is while lottery money is coming in, there may be other money coming in that is not necessarily going to that, but other parts of state government. host: ohio, independent line. caller: i am a devoted a listener. i want to announce that i want to run for president under the fair trade policy.

this has started our problems, beginning with china. you cannot sell here if you do not make it here. that is our problem. we should stop this free trade and go back to fair trade. host: any questions about how state budgets are doing in ohio? caller: ohio is pretty bad. i took an early retirement. host: which states are doing the worst in the best? -- and the best? guest: all are dependent on the national economy. you do see a different in smaller more wohl states with

agricultural and energy are rural states with agricultural and energy are doing better than bigger states such as california and florida. there is quite a bit of diversity out there. almost everybody was in bad shape as a result of the recession. host: let's hear from a republican from florida. caller: why did the democrats take $30 million out of medicare to put it in the healthcare bill? i printed out of the 2700 pages and read that all doctors get equal pay. illegal aliens are covered. the government decides whether

we are going to live or die. i find that unbelievable. i cannot believe that no one read the bill. i am going to call my congressmen before the bill is passed. thanks for being on the air. i am a first-time caller. how did he feel about the democrats taking -- they were going to take 3 million out originally. now they want to take 30. how'd you feel about that? guest: regardless of whether the health care bill passed or not, because of the enrollments increasing medicaid, because of the recession and higher health care costs, we are seeing higher costs in health care. that is one of the issues that has to be dealt with.

the health care bill is being rolled out and its other provisions do not take effect for a while. we are still in the process of implementing those in determining the exact effects of the provisions that come out of the bill. host: will it affect medicaid? you were talking about how it takes into account the things that people to not think about such as nursing home care. guest: states are still in the process of implementing health care bills. to determine the exact costs, there are some uncertain questions. what we want to see is disability so that we can deal with changes, to deal with states' issues as long as we

can. host: let's go to wichita, kansas. democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. hey, i wanted to tie in a little bit with the last segment you were talking about schools, and also, now here in kansas, the republicans are making a huge, huge push to cut funding in our schools. and it seems really ridiculous that we're supporting corporations, we're throwing money at huge, huge problems, and we're not taking care of our future while we're claiming we're taking care of the future. they have recently attacked women's rights. they continually pass laws that perpetuate a fake war on drugs. and instead of americans just owning up to the fact that probably 50% of americans smokes and buys marijuana, but yet the rest of the government

works as a huge system to attack prison people and keep our society. why? >> there are other levels of government, but the bottom line is there are extremely tough choices that have to be made by these officials, and obviously citizens. and i think what's exciting about a show like this is to hear the differences, because it really comes down to having really tough decisions. do you raise taxes or not? what do you do with the new money if you raise taxes? do you cut schools? do you cut schools so that you can put more money into the prison system? do you make tough choices as far as putting less people in prison so that you have more money for education? there are really, really tough choices, and i think what the caller really underscores is

how difficult these choices are going to be made as we go forward the next few years. host: you were talking about education. you already mentioned there's an area that's taking a big hit. how much so in relation to the last couple of years, what kind of a trend are we on right now? guest: well, it's interesting, states are trying really hard to not cut education, but we're at the end of a three to four-year period where they really had a tough time. unfortunately, there's still not enough money, and so you try not to cut cases, you're really to the point where now you see the actual cuts in education. simply because there's only so much money and there's so much money that went to the medicaid and healthcare system. host: rhode island, al joins us, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. pattison, i'm in the system where i monitor some of these

things with medicaid. i'd like to ask about medicaid and the other about the schools. we never talk about the real abuse of unwed mothers and what it costs the medicaid system. further, the things i see about a lot of these people, and it doesn't seem to affect them coming out about the amount of money that we really spend on unwed mothers, one child, two or three by the same party. this is a real big cost. host: sorry to lose you there, al. i think we heard where you're going with that. do you have a comment on how programs that deal with helping families assistance, things like that on the state level are being affected? guest: well, it's interesting. what we're finding is that that -- there are so many costs

within the healthcare system, and one of them involves the fraudulent side and the other are policy-base side, and i think it would really be hard to step back and make particularly policy changes about coverage based on family status. on the other hand, states would like to see the opportunity to have flexibility to really be aggressive against fraud. i know both of federal government and states have really been as aggressive as they can be right now. but i think folks have to admit that we have to go further to try to get not only the fraud issues, but just cost control and manage care better so that you're still getting good quality care, but you're being more efficient about it. a good example is, when you do studies of how many people are on different pharmaceuticals, you find that they've gone to different doctors, they're not always aware of what other healthcare is happening. so i think we really -- in the

past we've heard the term managed care, and i think a lot of people think h.m.o., but states are going to move more in that direction to try to manage the care of folks to get those costs to be more efficient. host: scott pattison is from the nasbo.org. let's look at some numbers coming to us from nasbo. in 2012, 33 states reported a budget gap. looking ahead to 2013, 21 states looking at a $62 billion amount in budget gaps. >> yeah, i think that really underscores -- and i'm glad people are learning about when we hear from the callers, what's going on in their particular states. because the bottom line there is, it's kind of like, again, a family budget. you start out at the beginning of the year, and there are

certain things you've got to pay for, like your mortgage or your rent, and then there are other things that did you to the other side of the ledger, they're nice to do, it's like a vacation. what happens is states start out like that, and they say, we've got the prison system, educational needs, we've got healthcare that we want to spend money on, we've got parks and recreation, arts commission and so forth, and so they add that up, and then they look at the revenue coming in, and there's a gap. and again, like the family budget, now they've got to sit down, roll their sleeves up, and determine, ok, what are we going to spend money on, because we don't have enough to spend the money on either everything. host: we were talking about a recent report, a semiannual report that looks at the fiscal health of states, where they're at and where they're going. one thing that you bring up in your report is the stimulus package, the american recovery

and reinvestment act, and how, as that starts to wrap up, it's actually having an effect in the negative. guest: it was money that assisted the states through the really difficult period. i'll let others debate about the economic impacts, but i can say that, from a mathematical impact, it was positive for states to get those funds, and we knew that they were going to end. so states have planned for it. during the recession, we had huge shortfalls because tax funds were coming in much less than we expected. so the cuts were unexpected, they were immediate. now we know they're coming, so they're easier to plan for. and there's certainly not an expectation that the federal government would provide an extension of the stimulus or the recovery act funds. so, in a way, we planned for t. the issue again is things have

flipped in that we're going to spend a lot more on medicare and medicaid partly because, frankly, the revenue hasn't come in as fast and as much as we would have expected during the recovery period at this point in time. host: florida, where beth is on our republicans line. welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. a gentleman called and mentioned today being june 6, d-day. and i think we should all just pause and reflect what that day is. i have a cousin who was there on the day. he's 90 years old now. we're happy to have him here. and i'd like to have a ditto on that end. when the man made the remark, nobody had a reaction. host: what are you doing with your family to honor that. caller: i never wallow with it or anything, but we're just

going to say it was 65 years ago, thousands and thousands of these guys hit the beach and so many didn't come back. my cousin was shot in the back by a german sniper, he's going to sit there today, and at lunch, it's pretty awesome. host: thank you for sharing your story. do you have any questions or comments for scott pattison? caller: you can't get is it t straight. some want to spend, some want 20 cut. -- some want to cut. let's draw the line. we have to do it. and then somebody else, the next caller called up and said, well, they're going to stop funding this or that, that's what cutting spending is. it's stopping the funding. get the two things together. you got to do it. how you do it, that's want my job. but we know it has to be done. host: all right. guest: and i really think what

the caller is talking about is that folks are going to have to prioritize within the context of government funds what money's going to be spent on. and if we want more money to come in, we have to change our tax system. most state officials have indicated lately they don't want to raise taxes, which is understandable. but for me, as a budget person, a lot tv comes down to simple math. so we have to make the tough decisions. and i have one prediction, and it's nice to be talking today about june 6 and d-day. i remember talking with my grandfather about it, and i actually thought about it when i woke up at 4:30 this morning. but what it comes down to is, i really think, like it or not, if you look at the simple math of what we're looking at, both the federal deficit and tight budget at the state and local level, we're all going to have to put in a little bit of sacrifice. we're all going to have to give up something. and i think we need to start to think about what is it we are willing to give up in order to

have other, higher priority things that we want within our government? host: brooklyn, new york. democrats line, hi. caller: hi. thank you for taking the call, and this is my first time getting through, so i'm a little excited. i want to say hello to pat. i have a comment or a couple -- well, two comments and a question. my first comment is, you're speaking about the budget, and it's very interesting that people are not -- let me explain. the approach in terms of the defense budget, how it's untouchable and it's on the table, but yet when something goes wrong in the defense area in terms of an employee or in terms of how we defend ourselves, it automatically adjusts to make sure that it never happens again.

so i don't understand why they can't take the same approach when it comes to our schools and the way that we regulate or deal with our healthcare system. i'm a big supporter, even though i'm a 42-year-old individual that's pretty much independent, so i don't really partake in the current system. i don't qualify just yet. so it's really a serious issue, and they say that it's a homeland security issue. why can't we attack that part of that budget so that it's sufficient for all americans? it's something that we actually pay towards. we get a medicaid fact. i don't understand how we can't really figure out how to work that out. that's my comment and question. guest: well, i appreciate that. and i think i can say, at the state level, everything's on the table. there are things like correctional prison systems and their costs that, in the past, i'm not sure would have been part of the discussion. but i think at the federal level, you're going to see

virtually everything on the table and discussion about how to deal with that and how to deal with the deficit. and frankly, at the state level, you're going see that, too. the other thing -- and i think there's a silver lining here -- i think there are a lot of opportunities for us to rethink spending in certain areas like education or the reforms or inefficiencies. can we do this in the prison system? and when you have lots of money, you don't necessarily look at it that way. but with money tight and money expected to continue to be tight for years to come, i think we're going to start to look at what is an efficient way to start to do things. you can cut costs, but still maintaining the quality of things in that environment. host: new york, republican line, hi. caller: hi. my question is, i guess some of the other callers had mentioned it, but on the state lottery situation, you mentioned that it's a small percentage. i'd like to know what that percentage is and what the actual dollar amount that comes

into the focus of the state from the lottery. also, i'd like to know that if you have a budget, how do you -- how do we get out of budget? a lot was supposed to be earmarked toward education, and now it's probably, i'm guessing, probably don't go completely to education or you have a budget where you have so much, so many dollars attached to what you have to do. how do we get so far out of budget that the state is in a pick snell i'd like to know the answer to that question, and i'll hang up. thank you very much. guest: well, there are a lot of factors. the biggest is the economy. we had the worst recession since world war ii, and as a result, we had a decline in economic activity. and so sales tax, income tax,

even some lottery purchases all went down. so there was less money coming to the state. so they've had to make cuts as a result. since states are not like the federal government, they aren't able to go out on the markets and do the operating deficits that a national government can. so, for the most part, they have to balance their budget, and so that's really a big part of what we're talking about. i think going forward, though, there's going to be a real opportunity to prioritize how money is going to be spent. i really encourage the viewers today to think about how they can get involved. for the first time ever, because of the internet, there are budget and spending information on the web that they have access to that 20, 30 years ago they wouldn't have been able to see. i have a 13-year-old niece who told me the other day she actually had an issue that she wrote to her governor about. i really encourage people to take the opportunity to get educated, because all this information is out there now about state budget and what they spend money on and what the tax system is like. there's a real opportunity for

citizen participation in the process. host: let's go to alabama, jeff on our democrat lines. jeff, where you calling from? where's your town? caller: it's north. host: ok. you're on with scott pattison. caller: ok. my question is, we have all these other cuts, why we looking at energy prices and the cost of energy. that's what started the whole recession to start with. guest: well, i'll tell you that that's such an interesting issue, because, of course, there are all kinds of aspects to energy costs. at the state level, we have been worried about energy costs, but there are some states that do well because they get a lot of tax revenue from oil and gas and coal and things like that. so depends on the state, there are some that do well when

energy prices are high, and then there are others that don't do quite well. host: let's talk about tax revenue. you talked about how that has a projected increase of over 2% in fiscal year 2012. we're talking about a total of $656 billion, 6% increase over last year. and 33 states are meeting or exceeding their tax revenue proceed jeckses for fiscal year 2011. where are the taxes from? are we talking income taxes? are we talking corporate taxes? and is there any talk of ratcheting those back now that there's actually an increase, a marked increase here? guest: it's a great question, because we have seen, particularly on the personal and corporate income tax side, we've seen those revenues go up. and what's good about that is we need to see growth. that means the economy is growing, that means people's income is growing. host: so as corporations take in more money, there's more to be taxed on? guest: exactly.

interestingly, the next year, we expect sales tax to be flat, which tells us consumers are not expected to spend quite as much as we otherwise thought. but the good news is we want the revenue to be coming in higher than we expected. but the concern continues to be that there's only so much money, and even though we're seeing growth, the spending side of the ledger, because the bills coming in that we have to pay and the caller just talked about energy costs, so that's a good example when you're suddenly paying more gas, higher prices for school buses and things like that, those costs go up. the bills keep coming in higher than the income we're getting. type tucson, arizona, tommy on the republicans line. welcome to the conversation. caller: hello. question for mr. pattison. you must be a glut ton for punishment in this deal. i just wanted to make a couple of quick points.

republicans are very much misunderstood. it's not that we're against many of the social programs that we're accused of being opposed to, it's simply that we're opposed to the federal government doing it. we're certainly not opposed to social programs. they're established closer to home, closer to the church, and for the schools. also, is it radical for me to believe that it makes more sense for us to pay the lion's share of taxes to our state governments and let the state legislator decide how much the federal government gets based on needs and services that are reversed? guest: well, i tell you, there are probably a lot of state officials who would like that. but, of course, we have the multijurisdictional system under the constitution with the federal, state, and local governments. but you have a good point in pointing out out that what we're looking at is tradeoffs.

and we have to accept that if we're only willing to have a certain amount of taxes come in, and that's perfectly fine, there's only so much money to spend, and so we have to limit what we spend on. and then we have to discuss what the money is going to be spent on. and i realize, i like how you say i'm a glut ton for punishment, because in the state field, it's very difficult, because everything is controversial, whether it's on the tax side or spending side. but i think you have a good point, though, also to point out that a lot of the services that people are very familiar with, whether it's trash pickups at the local level or state level, or education, are done by state and 4r08 governments. i think sometimes in the media, we forget how much is actually being done at the state and local level, and it's not all just the federal government, even though quite a bit of those funds do come from the federal government. so, in a way, we're all kind of like a tangled spider web of

government. host: let's look at an email from sue in new jersey. she asked if all states have a general fund. for instance, in new jersey, a new gas tax is under conversation to fund construction projects, but if the money gets moved to a general fund, it always seems to get spent on something else. guest: that's a good point. every state has a general fund, and that's basically the money that comes from general taxes, like your income tax, your sales tax if you have one, and so forth. and then what we call the nongeneral fund, or the special funds, are those like the gas tax that is earmarked for transportation. and that's certainly an issue that the email person has brought up, that every state has to consider. hour sacrosanct do they want to make those funds? do they want to make it clear no matter how bad other areas are, the gas tax has to go for transportation? and those are the decisions that have to be made to determine whether or not those earmarked funds always have to go to what they are earmarked

for. host: aim any florida, i understand pen line. welcome. caller: good morning. i just have two quick comments. one is, as a floridian, having kids in the school systems here, i'm really concerned with our current govern inner's approach on attacking education, especially in the e.a.d. area. my second comment is, we talk about needing ma to make cuts and cuts and cuts to healthcare, but we have no talk with controlling costs. until we control the costs in these areas, nothing we do is going to quite fix that problem. that's just my opinion. also, i see numerous senior citizens come down tear to take advantage of the silver sneakers program, free gym memberships paid for by medicare. that's just my comment. guest: i appreciate that. my parents' hometown is air society a. you might be a neighbor. the bottom line is states have been fairly active to try to

control healthcare costs, but boy, there's a lot more that needs to be done. i think everybody acknowledges that. and frankly, we have to get the costs under control everywhere, and within the k-12 system, as well as other parts of state and local government, there has to be an aggressive activity to ensure that the money is being spent effectively and that money is going to where the results are. i think that this is kind of the movement you're going to see, because the simple math really shows there's only so much money going forward where you have to make those tradeoffs and tough decisions. host: scott pattison with the national association of state budget officers, or nasbo. you mentioned earlier in our program that what happens in the building behind us on capitol hill, the u.s. capitol building, does really affect states and the budget that states have to deal with. what are you watching coming from washington this summer, and what are the implications for states? guest: well, a couple of things. the first is that what states are most concerned about is

ensuring going forward that they have flexibility, because if they have to make cuts to spend, they need as much flexibility as possible. frankly, there are certain mandate that is prevent from us doing that, and that's the problem. the other thing is states are being worried about cut. they understand the fed's got to get control over the federal deficit and will, start to make tough decisions in that direction. but they also are worried about being disproportionately cut. there was a committee in congress last week that cut overall homeland security spending about 3%, but cut some of our state moneys about 50% to 70%. so, our view is we're willing to be part of the shared sacrifice, but we don't want to be disproportionately hurt, because we do offer a lot of services for citizens. host: maryland, bonnie, republican caller. good morning. caller: yes, of a question. please let me finish. i want to know why the politicians give up nothing.

our past mayor had three rental cars. our senators in maryland have two rentals. now, these are high-dollar vehicles. we pay their hotels, we pay their food. we pay their cell phone. we pay the travel for the whole family. why aren't they giving up anything? why do we have to pay? and i've wondered -- i know i'm not the only one -- why too we have to pay for everything they do when they make good money? it doesn't make sense. guest: well, i think the point there is that there are certain spending programs or opportunities, whatever the case may be, at the state and local level, and frankly, federal level, too, ask it really comes down to we're all sit zens and we're voters, and we have to make it known that we don't want spending in certain areas. it really comes down to that.

otherwise if it's not known or felt that way, the elected officials are going to make certain decisions you may be unhappy with. now, sometimes you're still unhappy, but i think the critical part is for citizens to become educated about what money is being spent on and make their voices heard. one final point on that, too, that i think is important, is a lot of the spending that we talk about, it may be an issue, but it's often a very small percentage of the overall spending that goes on in the state. sometimes i think we need to step back and say let's look at the real big areas of spending, where can we control costs there? because if we focus on the nick and he will dimes, we're not going to see the big picture. host: we saw the brouhaha last week of the governor of new jersey reimbursing the state for helicopter rides, so maybe that's something that bonnie is touching upon and her concerns about what folks are paying for. one thing i wanted to ask you, you know that texas and alaska

make up over 48% of the total state balance level in fiscal year 2011, 51% in fiscal year 2012 in doing pretty well. what can be learned from states that are succeeding in their budgeting? is there anything that's applicable, or is it all about gas and oil prices? guest: it really is gas and oil. people ask me that about alaska and texas, because their reports show their rainy day funds are so much better. host: you can explain this, but we're talking about 48%, where's, without these states, 48 states have bammed levels that represent only 2.7% of general fund expenditures. guest: there's a big differential, and it really is just years and years in those two states of building up funds from petroleum, gas, energy reserves. there are some states that also benefit from energy reserves, but texas and alaska just have for many decades been able to,

so they built up these big balances. where's there are other states hurtly so badly they have zero in their rainy day funds. host: now to nance on our democrats line. caller: i'm a senior citizen, and, boy, -- boy, they talk about spending -- and i didn't mean to go here -- they talk about healthcare, i don't go to the doctor now because they're ripping off medicare so badly that i think it's like coming -- i figure it's coming out of my own pocket. but beyond that, i called in the first place because the banks don't pay their property tax on the foreclosed property.

how much money is not coming in from that? and third, i just got a new statement from their bank, i have 100-plus in the bank, and i am now getting, as of this month, .20 on my interest. what are they doing with the money? they're using my money and i'm getting .20? i have yet another one if it's all right. host: well, let's listen, because we're about out of time, and i'm sure scott pattison can address it for us. guest: i would say federal and state and local officials are really understanding of the fact that there's still capacity out there to control healthcare costs and other costs. and i think you'll see even more aggressive activity to not only try to manage and control costs in the healthcare area, because there is an acknowledgment that even though a lot has been done that doesn't get heralded, but

they'll continue to do so because they know there is a need to do that. then the other thing is, you're already seeing states really acknowledge and be very aggressive to start to collect taxes that folks have been able to escape because everyone really should pay their taxes. so you're seeing improvement in i.t. systems and so forth to try to get at that issue, too. host: scott pattison joining us from the national association of state budget officers. he's the executive director. that website is nasbo.org, and they have a semiannual report looking at state budget and the health of state budget situations. thank you so much for being with us this morning. i appreciate you coming in. coming up in our last hour, we'll look at the federal government's role in protecting private pensions. but first, coming up next, a roundtable talking about childhood obesity and what the government's role should be in preventing it. let's go to a news update from c-span radio. >> 31 past the hour at 8:00 a.m. eastern time.

more on former pennsylvania senator rick santorum's remarks earlier today on abc's "good morning america." in addition to saying he's running for president, he took a moment to criticize president obama's foreign policy, saying the president has gone too easy on iran, which is suspected of trying to obtain nuclear weapons. the former senator appeared in front of a banner-draped setting in somerset, pennsylvania, where he makes his formal campaign announce am at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. you canner that live on c-span radio or watch it on c-span. defense secretary robert gates is responding to questions from marines in afghanistan. he says they won't be able to opt out of their enlistment just because they disagree with the government decision to end a ban on gays serving openly in the military. congress voted in december to reveal the so-called don't ask, don't tell policy. the new policy will not go into force until 60 days after the

president, defense secretary, and nation's top uniform military officers certify that it can be implemented without affecting military readiness. and more violence today in iraq. the u.s. military says at least three rockets hit an iraqi base in eastern baghdad this morning, killing five american troops. the deaths raise to 4,459 the number of american service members who have died in iraq. and today is the anniversary of d-day, the landings in normandy and some world war ii veterans are commemorating the day in normandy. it's just one of several events taking place along that coast. today marks 6 years since allied forces landed on numerous beaches in nazi-occupied france. and those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> every weekend it's american history tv on c-span3, starting saturday mornings, 48 hours of people and events telling the

american story. watch personal interviews about historic events, on oral histories, our history bookshelf features some of the best-known history writers. revisit key figures, battles, and events during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. visit college classrooms across the country during lectures in history. go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on american artifacts, and the presidency looks at the policies and legacies of past american presidents. get our complete schedule at c-span.org/history and sign up to have it emailed to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> blair levin, who led efforts in the development of the national broadband plan, assesses the status of broad broad today, as well as other pending issues before the f.c.c., tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: walter olson is senior fellow with the cato institute.

we're also joined by maya rockeymoore. thanks to both of you for being here. wanted to get your take on the government's role in combating childhood obesity and telling americans how to eat and how they should eat. maya, what did you make of this new chart we have, this choose my plate new initiative by the agriculture department and the first lady to change up the way americans are told what's a good diet. guest: the chart is a vast improvement over the previous pyramid. that certainly had many people across america confused. but this chart actually gives you a visceral sense behalf your plate should look like every day when you're eating. and it certainly makes it clear that fruits and vegetables should be a greater portion of the american diet than it currently is. so i actually thought it was a good visual. i think that it's going to be helpful, not only for adults, but also for children. because it's an excellent way for them to easily see how their plate should look on a daily basis.

host: walter olson, does it go too far, is it too much? fwoip as a graphic, it is way better than the old pyramid with the rainbow and the steps, and it's clearer. the underlying question is how far the government should go to telling who's to eat. though we may find some grounds for disagreement, it's been telling us for a long time this is the latest in a government efforts, but what has ramped recently is the set of other policies, everything from new roles for school lunch programs to government advertising on one side or the other of nutritional issues. host: there's a cost that comes with trying to get healthier nutrition in schools. i mean, we're talking about some sizable fees. lawmakers say meals containing more fruits and vegetables and whole grains and low-fat dairy will cost an additional $7 billion over five years. guest: healthy foods tend to be

more expensive. however, let's look at the cost of society. childhood obesity is a major problem in this society. over the past several decades, we've seen the rate of overweight and obesity increase drama tippingly in children under the age of 17. currently we have more than 23 million children who are overweight and obese. that's one in three kids. this is important for society because there are costs to society. not only are there costs for the children themselves and eventually who will become perhaps overweight and obese adults who will have, you know, type two diabetes, heart disease, stroke, all of these costly and very expensive, but also preventable chronic diseases that are affecting our country. and the implications for society as well, if you look at the cost to our social insurance programs, like medicare certainly, and also to our safety net programs like medicaid, there are certainly chronic diseases that are obesity related that are significant in that regard.

so we just can't cut off our nose toss spite our face looking at the short-term costs without looking at the long-term costs. i need to point out that we're in this big debate about the future of medicaid and medicare, and certainly healthcare costs related to obesity-receipted chronic disease realize significant driver of the healthcare costs that are causing us to rethink some of those programs. so the short-term costs are nothing compared to the larger societal costs, and we should keep that in mind. host: walter olson, how can we afford not to improve school lunches and get kids healthier for the reasons maya just outlined? guest: let me start by another point of agreement. so many of these issues have been lost as just the leftovers for other school policies, other sorts of agriculture policies, and school lunch program was treat as a dumping ground for surplus agricultural commodities in schools. the decline of recess and physical education is in part the result of everyone lobbying

for more attention to various curricular areas. and simply by not doing things wrong, the government can give us an improvement. particular when will we say, for example, that we're not going to have whole fat milk or chocolate milk because nonfat milk would be a better choice for kids, it means the kids are not going to drink it at all, you're not solving the problem. host: you have a response? guest: we can't take this out of context. we have a problem with our energy bali situation in this country, meaning that where many of our children and certainly many of our adults are taking in more calories than they burn off certainly in physical activity. and this is causing an overweight and obesity problem. that's a crisis for our society. it's a crisis for public health. it is certainly a crisis, it's driving our fiscal crisis. so we can't just limit it by looking at, you know, how much the lunches are going to increase because of that. we have to look at the entirity

of the problem. and certainly america has been involved in providing nutritional guidelines and guidance for americans since the early part of the 20th century. and so we should understand that it's long been accepted that there is a role for government in protecting and safeguarding the public health. >> walter olson you have a piece called "back off: it's my plate." you talk about this myplate.gov effort that the first lady and usda are involved in. you even take issue with the name of, it the fact that it's called my plate, because that does sort of imply a level of getting into your personal business here. guest: yeah, it's not their plate, it's my plate. and yes, i want dietary advice, and society is full of it. you can turn on the tv without finding some of the best-selling books. the government has a track record -- and "the washington post" had a wonderful article last week about going through the near century of governmental advice and finding how much it's changed and how much of the advice today take back later as they realized

more. it used to be the food groups included not only sweets, but also butter. imagine a day when they were recommending we consume more butter, but it may have made sense in a malnourished society. host: in looking at this right now. you can see what walter olson is talking about, tracing the history of how the agriculture department has been trying to figure out the best way to package its suggestions for eating. you see how dramatic the changes are. back in 1894, the four food groups were proteins, carbohydrates, mineral matter like ash and salt, and fat. and moving into the 1916 era, we had sugar and sugary foods as a food group, fat and fatty foods, certainly changing all the way to 2011, where we've got dairy, protein, grains, fruit and vegetables. let's take a look at part of the ad campaign for the my plate effort going on right now coming out of the white house.

>> for americans to lead happy, productive lives, it helps to stay healthy, active, and fit. it's really pretty simple. choose a healthier plate and balance it with exercise. it all comes down to the choices we make. that's why i'm excited to introduce to you usda's new food icon, my plate. it's a simple reminder to make healthy food choices. my plate symbolizes mealtime and the food groups, fruits, vegetables, grains, protein, and dairy. a healthy plate for every meal. it's easy. and what we eat matters. overweight and obesity rates are at dangerously high levels, and the obama administration has worked to support americans who want to improve their health and nutrition. my plate is a partner to what we're used to seeing. it's an easy to understand visual which shows thousand build a healthy meal based on

the 2010 dietary guidelines for all of americans. host: that's the white house my plate ad. our guests are here to talk about healthy eating, obesity in schools, and what should or should not be done about it. walter olson with the cato institute, a senior fellow there, and maya rockeymoore with the leadership for healthy communities. let's get to the phones in phoenix, arizona, where christine is on our independent line. good morning. caller: hi, yeah, the lunch programs that i saw a special with jamie oliver, and they talked about the school lunch program in california, and they wouldn't even let him in the cafeteria to see what kind of food they're serving our children, and the idea that there's some kind -- you know, they regulate what they serve, and it's apparently ok to serve meat that's been washed with ammonia. i couldn't believe what i was

seeing, what they're feeding our children. this was in california. i'm actually -- my kids are grown now and don't have school lunches anymore. but when i was in school, school lunches were pretty good. so the idea that they're serving packaged and processed and ammonia-cleaned hamburger meat that can be -- i mean, it was disgusting what i saw. and it seems to me that with cutting funding for schools, you know, the schools got to cut funding for some things, so, you know, lunch programs, not to mention there's no more physical education in schools. most schools here anyway. they just don't have the budget for it. host: she mentioned jamie oliver, a celebrity food who made an effort to bring locally-produced foods into the school system. maya? guest: the caller brings up a good point, and that is that young people spend a majority of their day in schools.

schools have a responsibility to make sure what they're serving children actually support the health of children. certainly when parents send their children out of the home every day to be taken care of in school, they want to make sure that the schools are providing them, their children with healthy foods. and so, you know, in terms of what's offered in the school lunch line, what's offered at school breakfast, what's offered in vending machines, and certainly what's offered in terms of p.e. and physical activity, they're all important things that schools can do to improve the health of children. host: can it go too far in your opinion? guest: actually, i think there needs to be a balance. it's all about the energy bali situation. but we've gone too far in the other direction in this country with regards to, you know, certainly if you look at some of the lunch lines, if you look at what's offered in vending machines, these high-calorie, high-fat, low-nutrient foods, they're offered in excess, so much so that it's impossible, virtually impossible for children to actually have a healthy weight in this country

because of that imbalance. and so, also, the fact that walter is absolutely right. physical activity in school has declined dramatically in our nation's schools. and so, when you have a system where children are spending their time confined to a school for the bulk of their day, they're not getting access to healthy foods, access to water or access to physical activity, then what you have is what we have today, which is a childhood obesity crisis that needs to be solved. guest: one thing people don't realize about school cafeterias, you are must less likely to find an actual cook than 30 or 40 years ago. you're more likely to find processed food that has been heated up. one reason is fear of food poisoning. in general, anyone who works -- they don't want to be the person who's watched with an outbreak. so the canned vegetables,

frozen fruits are less likely. i mean, that's what statistics indicate to make your school the one with an outbreak. and yet that's incentive just to give them, just to be safe, be safe, be safe, at the expense of giving kids a more interesting and often more healthy eating experience. host: what is your ideal school cafeteria or eating facility, what would it be paid for and how would it work? guest: well, first off, decentralization. i think if you allow different places and different systems to go their way own, you will find some of them with successful experiments that are worth following elsewhere. that makes me suspicious of trying to dictate a solution from washington, even if they ask me to dictate that solution, i'd rather see what california is doing, see what new england is doing, see what illinois is doing, and then, you know, one of those is going to throw out something new. there's better and worse, and at least one advance here is they're not using it as much for surplus agriculture.

host: what is -- what if you're a parent of a student of a school system that doesn't have much funding, under the model you proposed, you might be unfortunate? guest: which is another problem with school systems that do not work well, which is that we are assigned to one, and if we don't think it's workable, school choice would help a lot. i don't know whether people are going to make decisions on school choice just based on the meals, although people have chosen hospitals based on the meals, so i guess it wouldn't be a first. but in general, get schools competing against each other, and one of the ways they will compete is by persuading parents that the overall experience, as well as it's better for their kids. host: we have a comment on twitter. larry writes, he thinks there's a direct connection between the nanny state fostering individual irresponsibility and an obese population. where does personal responsibility come in in taking control of what you put in your own body? guest: the issue of overweight

and obesity has many contributing factors f. you're talking about genetics or certainly behavior, you might be talk about the environment, and certainly sober yo cultural issues come into play as well. you have to realize that certainly people make choices within the context of their environment. and we actually currently live in a society where the environment has been structured to be an obese environment, meaning there are not enough choices provided for individuals so that they can make the healthy choice. and it's government's role to actually make sure that there are choices for people so that you can have liberty if you want to lead a healthier life. and so, people make choices in the context of their environment, and it's important to realize that it's not a state, it's certainly the state's role to make sure that people have those opportunities to make healthier choices. host: let's go to hawaii, where brian is on our democrat line. good early morning to you. caller: yeah, we have only one party in hawaii, and that's the

democratic party. i would say that the government -- it's not their job to tell us what to eat. i think this is still america, but why don't we buy foods that are made in america? if you look at canned foods, they'll say that they're made in spain or they're made in thailand or they're made in red china. that would be the first thing. the second thing is why don't we try leadership by example? look at the adults in the house of representatives and tell these kids that they're supposed to be thin when half the people in d.c. can't get out of their chair. guest: well, there's a couple of questions there. i think that we would be -- it would be a disservice by keeping food from overseas which provides a lot of the fruits and vegetables that the usda correctly points out are good for us.

that hasn't been said, there's a lot going on with the obesity problem. i wanted to respond to something that maya said, in that the obesity program is strongly different from region to region. there are parts of the country, even though the economies are similar, even though the supermarkets seemed to be stocked in a similar way, have much lower rates of obesity than any own native midwest, for example f. we're trying to figure out why there is this societal trend, part of the question is, what is california or colorado or parts of new england doing right? you know, what can we imitate that they have been doing right for years? guest: i'd like to speak to that certainly we've decentralization prior to the passages of healthy, hunger free kids act. certainly we look to the states as laboratories for

experimentation in terms behalf are best practices. we've seen those best practices infused in this recent bill, also that we can crealts. we're taking the best of what's been out there to create standards for the nation. once we know better, we do better. in this case, the federal government has a role to make sure that everyone has access to certainly healthy foods. now, realizing that there are significant differences in access, even within states, even with cities, we've got neighborhoods that don't have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. they have more access to fast food restaurants than fresh fruits and vegetables because of the disinvestment of supermarkets in their neighborhood. when you look at the statistics in terms of rates of chronic diseases, they approximately overlay the issue, the areas where there are issues with access, and those areas tend to be low income neighborhoods, they tend to be populations that are disproportion natural the racial. and so you see higher rates of chronic diseases in the areas that have less access. government has a role to make sure that there is access, and certainly in neighborhoods and certainly in schools, we should

make sure that people have what it takes to be healthy. host: let's go to florida, nick on our republican line. welcome. caller: i just wanted to make a few comments. i know the majority of conversation this morning is about schools, but the thing is , i'm a parent, and it's up to me what my child eats. and for me to be responsible for my child until they reach the age where they're responsible, and if i'm not feeding them at home, they're not going to get it, the right nutrition to begin with, because school lunches with only one of their meals a day, maybe two if they're on the breakfast program. but they still have the weekends, and if they're sitting around playing video games when they're at home and not doing exercise at home, it's not just the schools or the government's responsibility, it's up to parents to be parents and maybe educating the parents on, hey,

cut out the video games to only give them 20 or 30 minutes a day and do something outside with them as parents. and maybe incentive programs to help them exercise in different areas. host: you brought up something there about what you were saying about incentive programs. do you think there should be -- explain to me about how incentive programs would work. would there be ones to eat healthy as well as exercise? host: well, yeah, maybe for the kids, because they have health programs that come out for adults, you know, in different work places, you know, to -- an incentive for them to be healthier so that their insurance isn't as much. so maybe do something for the kids. maybe have some kind of awards program. i know they got the presidential physical fitness program, maybe expand on that and get kids more involved in local areas, and let's face it,

no matter what's on the shelf, if a kid has a choice, they're going to choose the thing that is less healthy for them just because of what's in it. host: our caller was saying personal responsibility is up to the parents, but then he brought up this idea of incentives. guest: well, the idea of adjusting people's health insurance rates, although it's often been suggested, is an enormous pushback and looks like charging the highest prices to some of the people who are in the most trouble to begin with, so good luck in f that's your idea. i don't think politically it will be happening. but i agree so much with nick's point, which is it's very hard to find a better predictor of whether a child will wind up struggling with these problems than the food environment in their home. different kids can go to the same school, they will have different outcomes, not because school is treating them differently, but because their home lessons in food are different. that is something that the government can't really take

the lead on. we need to be better parents. one of the things ties in with the lack of recess at schools, but studies have found that kids do not play outdoors nearly as much as they did. part of it is fear of what happened if they got kidnapped, part of it is video games, lots of reasons. but for whatever reason, it's not one that you can blame on the schools. kids just don't do as much physical play these days. host: let's look at some of the numbers. this is coming from the c.d.c. 17%, that's 12.5 million children adolescents are considered to be obese. since 1980, obesity prevalence has almost tripled. one in seven low-income preschool-aged children are obese. guest: what nick was talking about was the role of patients, and parents are certainly important. all parents want their children to be healthy, to lead really robust lives and really long lives. and certainly when their children leave the house, they have the right to expect that institutions that act in place

of parents are supportive of those aims and goals. and so, certainly, schools and communities have to work in partnership with parents to make sure that they support children's health as well. certainly through access to freck fruits and vegetables, certainly healthy options, and also access to safe physical activity. now, in the school, that takes the form of recess, it takes the form of p.e. classes that are high quality and meet the basic standards. but in the community, it also takes the form of making sure that children have access to safe places to play, that they have parks and recreational opportunities that support certainly happy, healthy, physically active children. host: ohio, carol, democratic caller. good morning. hi, carol. carol, are you with us? you're on the air. caller: good morning. host: carol, turn off your tv and we're with you. caller: yes, i am.

host: turn off your tv and just talk on the phone. we're ready for your question. caller: one caller did touch on the jamie oliver issue and schools. what is the government's role in all of this? i think he plays a big role, because they allow the chemicalization of our schools. the foods are not natural anymore. these chemicals do disrupt all types of body systems in children, adults, so why is the government allowing so much chemicals into the food? it enriches the corporations, we understand, but could either of your guests please answer that question for me? host: to both of them. walter olson. guest: i think we start with the presumption that people are allowed to choose what food they want to buy, and for a lot of us, the ones that have been processed in some way have attraction today. they last longer before they spoil. they are less likely to have certain types of spoilage.

they're with the government only if it's very clear that there's no reasonable consumer would want in a food. and that leaves us with -- and it leaves every country with a heavily processed food system which we're going to wind up, even if they have healthier food, there's still going to be a lot of processing. there's no way of getting around it. host: the government has had a longstanding role in ensuring the food products, through the usda, f.d.a., there are regulations and standards in effect. at the federal level, the farm bill is certainly very pool. there's a food bill that sets standards for the nation's society. and so a lot of these issues with regards to what's state of for the american public are front and center and the government does do a lot of regulation. the issue that she's raising, the issue of the chemicals in

foods and preservatives in foods, it's one that i think is still bubbling to the forefront of america's can sheness. certainly there has been a lot of pushback in recent years about various additives like salts and other things. and so, the science is still being debated, and certainly the plate that the first lady and the government just released in addition to the plate they had guidance about what things to look out for in terms of the ingredients in foods. but certainly, the government does have a role and will continue to have a role and as we know more about various additives and certain other various chemicals, and trees issues will be debated in the future. and i am -- i am sure these issues will be debated in the future. sure we will air on the

side of public health, especially in light of the equalizer outbreak in germany correctly -- the e. coli outbreak in germany correctly. host: our guest is chief of staff to congressman charles rangel, democrat of new york. our other guest is a senior fellow at the cato institute. a senior fellow at the manhattan institute in the past and his writings appear regularly in the "new york times" and the "new york post." we are talking about the new campaign by the fda and the choosemyuse called

plate.gov. here is a tweet. what do you think about advertising in the schools and some of these commercial endeavors that appeal to the palate of fatty foods and rich foods? guest: i think there is a challenge in advertising to schools and advertising in general and society, whether it be through school programs or online or through television. there is nothing wrong with marketing to children, but when you are marketing bad health to children your marketing the notion that you will be cool if

you eat this particular food or beverage. it ends up undermining your health and causing you to die young and have poor health in your lifetime. there is a notion of marketing high calorie, high-fat food to children. host: what you think? guest: i did not blame the commercials when i wound up costing them on children's tv because my son was already -- when i wound up seeing them on children's tv because my son was already going to want them. this is why i pack a lunch, such an important step for parents. such an important step for parents to connect with a children's food choices is to be there for them at lunch. host: here is a claim out of

california, that company's advertising violates california's consumer protection clause. how this is from the chicago tribune business online. you mentioned that you do not hold the advertisers responsible, but is there a line that should be there in public schools and how these things are appealing to children? guest: i agree there is a question of britain these things into public-school where there is a -- in bringing these things into public school where there is a captive audience. at a restaurant, the parent is in charge. i think the child would also want the food if there were no choice in the happy meal.

guest: why not a character or apples? why put the toys with the foods that have been the -- the least nutritional quality? guest: but mcdonald's will give you the apples. guest: i am saying if you look at where advertisers promotional items with children -- for children, they're often paired with foods that have low nutritional quality, high foods, high-fat, foods that undermine children's health. -- high-fat, high calorie foods. foods that undermine children's health. host: let's hear from dan in iowa. independent collar. good morning, jan. caller: good morning, thank you. i called in and i really did not want to talk, but she said it's

ok if i want to. please hear me. i do not mean to be disrespectful to any of you, but in truth, we are talking about taking 1 khandelwal. and if you -- one chemical. if you take aspirating, that is in all kinds of foods. -- aspartame. it is in all kinds of foods. it has been proven to do so much damage to all parts of the body. and yet, the continue to use it. if you really think about this, believe that the american people should trust the government that cannot manage other things, even our spending, but they are going to manage our food and what we put in our mouth and tell us what we should eat? , oh, it is healthy and we really care about you when they

cannot even keep our borders safe and our kids are dying for us. guest: if you look on infomercials, there's all kinds of scientific and evidence. she is right about aspartame. how are american supposed to navigate the large amount of data about what is healthy and was not? certainly, our government has a role and will continue to play this role in serving as arbiter of this information to make sure that there are standards of evidence that are met with science. and certainly, that they're promoting public health and having better protection to have access to this data. guest: i do not think that the

government always comes up with the right answers. i noticed earlier that choosemyplate.gov gives information about product that is not good advice in all circumstances. i hear from one half of my friends that low carbohydrate or new carbohydrate diets are better. -- or no carbohydrate diets are better. guest: when we know better, we do better. there are instances, perhaps, of misinformation, but on the total we are headed in the right direction. this is guidelines. this is giving people a sense of what they should do. it is not perspective. it is not saying you have to do this and you cannot do something else.

host: let's go to kalamazoo, mich., barbara, republican collar. caller: the government, i do not feel, has any business of telling the parents -- we do not make the parents responsible for discipline, but it is the parents' responsibility to keep the chart -- to teach the children what is good and what is bad. at the schools we have vending machines and the kids have money all the time nowadays, so they are using that. but when they actually serve the meals, they have the chicken nuggets and the vegetables and a sloppy joe's. the kids are going to take what they want.

guest: actually, that is what the healthy, hunger free kids campaign was all about. it was about setting nutritional standards in the schools, that what was offered for lunch and breakfast meet nutritional guidelines. the idea of junk food being the predominant food is hopefully becoming a thing of the past as a result of this. host: let's look at the numbers from the cdc. our last caller talked about personal responsibility, parents teaching their kids a good modeling, but also packing their

lunches and giving them good tips on what to buy and what to eat. there are some kids who just do not have that kind of support system. guest: that is why, i guess, there is some agreement with were the schools are offering package and not doing anyone a favor. getting back to solve, for example, for a moment, because we have now been lectured for some time about less salt. soup is often one of the best things on the menu. it is one of the best ways to get vegetables into kids, but it is hard to make it taste good with are using more salt than the government recommends. -- without using more salt than the government recommends. host: looking into a story from

cq weekly talking about agricultural funding in the house, the agricultural spending bill for fiscal year 2012, the appropriations bill, there is some discussion about how far the government should go when it comes to setting standards. the panel adopted an amendment by senator rayburn, the republican from montana. he said that the fda is starting to use soft sciences in some considerations in the promulgation of its roles. what do you think about this, mr. wilson, as far as what language is used to create these

rules and standards? guest: on the one hand, it is hard to have hard scientists -- hard sciences set the standards. on the other hand, the public has a bit of an unreadable standard. i think we have rushed in, and often without the best sciences behind it. i understand the motion behind it -- the emotion behind it. host: and this bill, it would cut funding and other things. the bill includes 100 vote -- $108 billion in mandatories bending. -- mandatory spending. guest: whether it is through the nih for the cdc, certainly we

have other arturs -- arbiters. all of these entities have scientists on board who are looking at the data and evaluating the science to give us the best sense of what the research suggests we should do. and those guidelines have influenced the standards that were sold -- set forth in the healthy, hungry free kids -- healthy, under free kids campaign. and that actually did give kids the ability to define -- and did give them the ability to define what the standards are in the schools. and now policymakers want to roll back the ability to afford children access to help the food based on what is acceptable sense right now. -- acceptable science right now.

we need to understand the healthy kids certainly means a healthy and productive society and are ultimately means less cost to the state in the form of reduced costs to medicare and medicaid. we cannot cut off our noses to spite our faces. we need to invest in jabr and while they are young so they can grow up to be healthy, productive adults with fewer medical costs that society and our families have to bear. host: let's go to our next call, from alabama. caller: most of you are missing the point. schools across the nation are too busy cutting and not trying to find the money that is supposed to be helping schools. why is that?

i have never seen c-span question anyone about the lotto money. guest: i'm sure there would be a lot to find out about a lot of money. this is why the issue has come to a head in congress with the amendment and so forth. it is going to cost significantly more to provide meals in schools. we just do not have the money. we are laying off teachers. do we have to do it now? inevitably, the politics of this, we had an election in which we are more skeptical about washington. guest: it is not an unfunded

mandate. there are actually funds that have been appropriated as a result of policy makers understanding that healthier foods tend to be more expensive. you certainly see that in the fire out -- the child nutrition bill and the federal reimbursement rate to pay for these bills. and certainly, consideration of other ways that these schools can make sure that they are not subsidizing the cost of these meals are undermining the subsidies for these meals. it is important to understand that the healthy and were free kids act is not an unfunded mandate. -- the healthy, hundred-free kids act is not an unfunded mandate. host: here is a tweet. can both be done with the financial situation that we have right now in america? are they compatible or can they

be at odds? how much real money is spent teaching us how to eat verses feeding the poor and taking care of the needy? guest: fortunately, we are not in an either/or proposition. we sought funding to make sure that we are presenting the best data. but we are also trying to provide food support for people across america, whether the be through food stamps or the school lunch program for the summer feeding program that are so important to low-income children across the country. we are in a situation where we can do both and we want to make sure that we can continue to be a country that can afford to do both. the only way we can do that is by ensuring that we have healthy, productive children that grow into healthy, productive adults that can contribute to the national economy.

guest: one of the connections between money and the government being too bossy is that, for years, school food has been wasted. they serve it to them sometimes because they have a lot of cauliflower and is not well received by the kids. in the district of columbia where the kids were served green onions and scallions, most of the kids did not like it. if you are not meeting the kids -- i do not know if halfway is right or one-third of the way -- [unintelligible] guest: there are also studies that show when kids are offered and vegetables, they often consume it. you would be surprised that kids are actually going through the

cell bars at schools. i do not think we should underestimate -- the salad bars at schools. i do not think we should underestimate giving them the option. host: the difference between wilted, c.b. tal afar vs fresh -- soupy cauliflower vs fresh cauliflower. you see a difference there? guest: yes, there are ways that you can make healthy foods at fund for children and accessible for children. host: thanks so much for being here this morning. coming up next ahman we will talk about -- coming next, we will talk about pensions and how the government should be contributing to private pension plans. >> it is 9:20 a.m. eastern. president biden -- vice president biden's debt

negotiation continues. but the five senators are calling on the vice-president to leave medicare and change during the budget negotiations. senator square mccaskill, john tester, ben cardin and bill nelson, all democrats with significant elderly populations who are up for reelection in 2012. secretary gates said that despite the death of osama bin laden is still too soon to wind down the war on terror. secretary gates is in the country, saying final falwells to u.s. troops before he retires at the -- final farewells to u.s. troops before he retires at the end of this month. in libya, there have been more air strikes in and around tripoli. they have hit a storage centers, command-and-control facilities, and radar systems.

nato general rasmussen talked about the air strikes earlier. you can hear his remarks at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and a proposal to buy 10 american seed-17 aircraft for more than $10 billion. an indian official requires that boeing invest 34% of the profit in its defense spending in india. >> the house has completed work on the first two bills to fund the federal government. you can follow them at congressional chronicle with easy to follow schedules, plus video of every house and senate session. congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. >> blair levin assesses the

status of broadband today, tonight on "the communicator's" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joshua gotbaum is our guest. thank you for being here. guest: nice to be here. host: how endanger american pension plans? -- how endangered our american pension plans? guest: the fact is, the vast majority will be absolutely fine. one thing is, you have a lot of money invested in the stock market, so when markets go down, the plans are underfunded. one of the things about markets is, stocks go down, stocks go up. eventually, they return.

the vast majority of pension plans are and will be fine. but it is hard to tell them right now because right now, the market is in bad shape, the economy is in bad shape. these kind of pension plans are underfunded currently. what let's talk about your pension guaranty corporation does. someone has a private pension and they expect to see -- receive that. if you have defined benefits, you will get a certain amount of money going into retirement, but your company goes bankrupt. guest: the pdic was founded on the fdic. when a bank closes, the fdic steps in and makes sure your deposits or clip -- are covered up to some limits. host: just because my bank fails, my deposits are not unnecessarily -- guest: exactly, and that is what the pdic does for pensions.

if the company fails, we step in and pay up to a certain limit. we have been doing it for 37 years. but right now, we are responsible for about 1.5 million people's pensions. and we are also ensuring, protecting if you will, the pensions of 40 million others. host: let's look at some statistics by mcclatchy. guest: yes, well, the revenues actually come from premiums. like the fdic, the way the pbgc works, we are insuring them against failure. you do not use tax payer money. you charge pension plans, an

insurance premium. it is those funds, plus the fund's we get from the plans that we take over that paid for our obligations. host: talk us through how a company would engage pbgc. if i am concerned about my pension plan, can i take matters into my own hands? guest: no, the way this works is when a company is in so much trouble that they have to terminate their plan, normally, that means they are in bankruptcy and they may not get out. then they will talk to us and say, we think we have to terminate our pension plan. the first thing we try to do, quite frankly, is to convince them not to terminate their pension plans. we think is important to keep the pension plans in place. we spend a lot of effort trying

to get companies to keep their plans. but it is clear that the company cannot, then we come in and we take over the plan. we will then come to all of the people who are participants in that plan, the current employees, retirees or wherever, and say, the bad news is that your plan has been terminated. the good news is that the pbgc will pay your benefits. we then go in and figure out what benefits you would have received under your plan. couey csis -- we see if that is within our limits and we pay it. we paid on time. we are very proud of the fact -- as i say, we have taken 1.5 million people on. for those on pensions, when we take over their plans, we always pick up the payment on time. host: and mcclatchy story

running in the "seattle times" recently says -- where has this left you? guest: it has left me convinced that it is really important to have a pbgc. as we all know, in the past couple of years the economy has gone through the wringer. while clearly getting better, it is also the fact that a lot of companies have gone through tough times, a lot of companies have gone through bankruptcy, and a lot of companies have been unable to keep their plants. and that is why the pbgc is so

important. that is why we have stepped in. the effect of all of this on our finances is that we have taken on a lot more obligations than we used to have and we do not currently have all of the resources to pay it. but that is why we charge premiums to plans. we have a proposal in front of congress now to raise our premiums so that we can make sure we can pay our obligations for the long term. host: we have the director of the pension benefit guaranty corp., p pbgc, appointed by president obama in july of last year. let's go to our first call. caller: you are in charge of the organization that covers private environmental pensions.

i have a question. can you profile the difference between government and private pensions in terms of the amount of time it takes to qualify for a private worker in the united states and a government worker, and the probability that a pension will pay out in its full extension? i am 57 and the anecdote is i have seen a lot of the industry, the textile industry in the south, i have seen a lot of industries close up shop and ship offshore because of international labor rates. and i have a father-in-law that was involved in a company that closed in downtown manhattan. all of these companies were deep-sixed and abolished.

my question is, -- and this is my bias and my question -- i think the government pensions are easier to qualify for and much more fruitful in terms of long payout for coverage than private pensions. what is your opinion? guest: one of the things you should know is that the pension benefit guaranty corp. only deals with private pension plans. we do not deal with government pension plans. we are not expert in them. i will not be able to give you an informed judgment about the comparison between the two. i think there are some commonalities that we are to talk about. one is, there are still a very large number of people in america that have traditional defined-benefit pension plans. we at the pbgc project only

private pensions and recover 40 million people. -- and we cover 40 million people. in the public sector there are many but tens of millions in addition. we think in this country there are 70, 80 million people who have traditional pension plans. and we think that is worth protecting. part of the way we do it, frankly, is we urge companies to keep their plants. if we succeed in that, we are very proud. one of the things of which i am actually proudest is that last we talked to companies and said, even though you are in bankruptcy, can't you find a way to reorganize without killing your attention? and in a lot of cases we were successful. today, just from our efforts last year, there are 300,000 people who have not lost their pensions because of that kind of effort.

we think that matters. one of the things we always do is to try to make sure that people understand the benefits of the traditional pension because one of the sad facts of life is, you are right, half the people in america do not have any pension at all. that is sad. what we try to do is preserve folks who do have pensions. and we also try to encourage people to expand where they have pensions. my view is, 35 years ago, the pbgc and shourd penchant covering 35 million americans. today, we cover 44 million americans. we have a lot of work to do, but that is what we are doing. host: you mentioned that you

deem them success stories because you have convinced companies not to cut off pension plans. i was trying to find a delicate way to put it. one thing that has happened in the last couple of years is the auto industry. just looking at this story from bloomberg business week, gm used pbgc and you took responsibility for $6.1 billion in pension payments. what kind of impact does that have won an issue like this comes up? in my speech a huge amount of money for you to have to deal with. guest: the pbgc has assets of $80 billion. last year, we paid out about $6 billion in benefits. and we took in a little over $2 billion in premiums and we had

high single-digit billions in investment income. no one would say, oh, does it not worry you when you take on a large plan or when a large plan fails -- of course it does. that is where we work very hard to preserve those plans. in the auto industry last year, the auto parts business of ford -- that had been part of ford was in bankruptcy. they were planning on terminating their pension plan. we went to them and said, do you really need to do this? can you reorganize your business with are doing that? in the end, they agreed. as a result, i do not know how many of those workers there are, but there were a lot of them who have their pension and health

insurance, etc. because of what we did. because of what we did, the delphi employees in set of getting their pension and health insurance, they get a pbgc pension. host: let's go to a caller. caller: let's go back to your statement that the vast majority of corporations are underfunded in their pension plans. this could be nick in the bud if we had congress and the white house -- this could be nipped in the bud if we have congress and the white house establishing that no bonuses would be paid to if the pension system is underfunded. perhaps not only congress and

the ordaz are sleeping at the switch, but is it -- and the white house are sitting at the switch, but also the unions and other organizations who are not getting the pension plans properly funded. guest: i have to tell you that there are a lot of folks who agree with that in some way, shape or form. there are a lot of folks that think if the pension plan is underfunded, then shouldn't something happen? and also tell you that over the starting with compl, the legislation that created the ,bgc in the mid-1970's including the federal government saying if you're going to have a pension plan you have got to put money away for it and you have to make sure the money is there when the time is right. there is already in place a lot

of protection. notwithstanding those protections, when the stock market goes down, especially when it has gone down as much as it has in the last couple of years, and when the economy is as weak as it has been the last couple of years, even very sound companies have underfunded pension plans. personally, i do not think the response is to say, let's add another additional regulation in that circumstance. i think the right response is to do what we have proposed to do, which is to say, when it comes time to set in the premiums -- when it comes time to set the premiums that they paid to the pbgc, we ought to take that into account and if they oughstart to pay fat -- if they start to play fast and loose, then their

premiums are to go up. host: pbgc debt has gone up since 2002. what are your thoughts about that? guest: actually, it has shown an accounting deficit for most of its existence. the reason is, we take on obligations. when a company fails, we take on the pension plan. there is never enough money in the pension plan to cover it. we start with a deficit and then we make up the difference in two ways. one is, we try to invest those funds conservatively and defensively. and the other thing is, we charge premiums to folks. time after time in our history, the congress has said, oh, you have a deficit, so premiums have to go up to cover it. right now, our deficit is large by historical terms, not

surprisingly, there are a lot of conversations about raising pbgc premiums. personally, i do not worry about whether or not the pbgc will be able to meet its obligations, notwithstanding the deficit. we will. right now, we have $80 billion in assets and we can pay them -- pay benefits for decades. host: under the new proposal the pbgc would get approval to charge more for premiums. guest: yes, part of the reason it is important to have realistic premiums is because that is the way we make sure that we can actually pay the pensions when the time comes. and historically, every time the deficit has gone large, congress has stepped in. what we are proposing now is rather than congress do it in a

way that tree debris the same, why don't we do with more business like that actually -- that actually treat everybody the same, why do we actually do it more businesslike, in a way that rewards people? host: from michigan, pete, a republican. caller: your guest talks about a large number of folks pepe pbgc is helping, and it is probably is helping, pbgcx and it probably of a large number. what i would like to know is what is the percentage of people that are being helped? the percentage is probably very low. the rest of us are saving through 41 k pension plans, ira's. and we are taking the risk

ourselves and we need to return to retire comfortably. i find it a bit disturbing that all of us, which is a large percentage of american workers, 80%, 90% of us who are saving for retirement are paying any taxes at all to guarantee defined benefit pension plans for such a small number of private workers who have these plans. and i would say, most of those -- and maybe you could tell me what a small percentage of workers who have defined benefit pension plans are part of union labor. it seems to me this whole program is a giveaway that we can no longer afford to union labor. and those people, if their pension goes bad, they should get a cash lump-sum payment, rolled into an ira and take the risk like the rest of us.

guest: let me start with some facts. you are a taxpayer. so am i, by the way. neither of us paid a dime of taxpayer money to ensure pensions. not a dime. the pbgc has never used taxpayer funds and part of my job is to make sure that we never do. that is why we charge premiums and that is what the pension plan is all about. this is not from your tax dollars or mine. u.s. the question of how many people -- you can't ask the question of how many people are under traditional pension -- you asked the question of how many people are a traditional pension plans. there are about 40 million in total. the number of employees is something approaching 30% of the work force.

30% of the people have a defined benefit pension plan. however, the reason why i think it matters is because most of the rest do not have anything at all. most of the rest do not have pension plans. some of the rest are folks like you, and by the way me, whoever ira, 401k type of pension plans. but very couple of problems with them. -- there are a couple of problems with them. one is, they forced people to become their own investment experts. and unfortunately, most of us are not investment experts, and as a result, are concerned -- are concerned areour concer-- o

about those pension plans is that you will go to retire and discover it is not enough. one of the great things about this nation -- and we should all be proud of this -- we are all living longer, healthier lives. that is a great thing. in my view, is the greatest accomplishment of the last century. but it means that when people retired, their returns are going to last longer and cost more. as a result, pension plans will cost more and people will have to save more. and folks do not necessarily do the math when they have the 401k. people will think they have a fair amount of money and they will retire and then they will live longer and run out of money and suddenly, instead of pouring kids, you have boomeranged parents. boomerang kidsthe more rai

you have boomerang parents. host: here is a tweet. private, is there any subset that is not included in this? guest: we include a traditional pension plans that are sponsored by businesses, non-profit, etc., so private pension plans. we do not guarantee 401k's, private contribution plans, government plans. the agency was not set up to do that. recover "only -- we cover "only " the 44 million people that we cover. host: but go to the next call.

-- let's go to the next call. caller: i would like to know how many people had pension plans when ronald reagan stepped in office in 1980. before the assault on the middle class began. i know that newt gingrich's contract with america, he took away the guarantees for pension plans. the managers of pension plans had the fiduciary responsibility to invest those plans in such a manner that the principle was never lost. the republicans and newt gingrich in their assault on america decided to let the company keep that reinvested and leverage against pension plans. they passed that law and i took an early retirement because i knew the pension plan was going to be gone. one of the reasons the bailout

was necessary because so many pension plans were invested in this scam on real estate. basically, we have had our pension plans stolen and keep voting republican, folks. they will get everything. guest: let me start with some facts. as i mentioned, 30 years ago, the pbgc pension plans have cover 35 million people. today, we ensured -- we insured pension plans covering almost 44 million people. that does not mean there are not lots of folks who are now doing defined contribution plans and 401k's, etc., but there are a lot of folks who are still in traditional pension plans and we think that is important.

over the years, and i mention this to the previous caller, the government stepped in to say, when you have a traditional pension plan you have got to be responsible for it. there is a fiduciary obligation. there has been a fiduciary obligation since 1974. what has happened over time is, as people have tried things, companies have tried things, congress has from time to time stepped in and said, what we meant by responsible did not include that, so you cannot do it. that has happened time and time again. the result is, frankly, as i mentioned at the beginning of this program, the majority of pension plans in this country are sound. and it does not mean that they are not going true tough times because of the market, but they

are sound. they are going to pay benefits. and the vast majority of people who are in traditional pension plans are going to get their pensionget theira pbgc pension. -- going to get their pension plans, not a pbgc plan. host: 2003-05, our guest lead an organization of hawaiian airlines as it emerged from chapter 11 in credit. creditors were paid in full as it emerged from bankruptcy. guest: i am actually quite proud of that. for me, one of the important experiences with these the

gambert 11 fund. -- the 9/11 fund. one of the things you think when you are trying to help folks is, i am helping folks, isn't that great? and what we forget and what i learned when i was running the 9/11 fund is that people's lives had been turned upside down. and when people are forced to deal with the pbgc their lives have been turned upside down. their companies are gone, their pension funds, etc. in cases like that, folks are not inclined to write thank you notes. for me, that was an important preparation and education. because one of the things we try never to forget that the pbgc is that we are helping folks at a

time in their lives when they are distressed. host: in missouri, wayne joins us on the democrats line. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead, sir. caller: are you familiar with the survivor benefits under the pension plan? guest: i have some familiarity with survivor benefits. caller: my question is, after i we set up a benefit plan of 50% that would go to my wife is something happened to me. but as time goes on, we decided we were both in good health and we thought we would stop the plan. lo and behold, there ain't no way on god's earth we are going to stop the plan. it was in solid bedrock.

do you have an answer? is that something we cannot change? guest: one of the things that is important to remember about pension plans is your pension plan is your pension plan through your company. it is not the taxpayer plan or the government's plan. every plan is different. some of them let you make choices at varying times. some of them force you to make a choice when you start. i have been present in both kinds of plants. that is -- i have participated in both kinds of plans. that is something you need to talk about with your company. host: we have talked about how the pbgc could have its opportunity to raise premium rates altered. recently, the obama administration proposed giving pbgc authority not only to raise

premiums, but also to assess the risk of any given insurance company, much as f.d.i.c. does. but there is some push back here. the chamber of commerce opposes it. here is what is said. guest: let's start with basics. i spent more than half my life in business and one thing that is true with all businesses, we do not want our premiums to go up. it doesn't matter if it's government or private insurance premiums. it is not surprising that the first reaction of all business groups when they hear that pbgc

premiums may go up again, they say, oh, no, it is unnecessary. we do not want it. the second thing is, should premiums treat everyone alike? let me use an example. we are all required to have auto insurance, but we do not all pay the same rate. if i am a lousy driver, i pay a higher rate. if you are a safer driver, you pay lower rates. if your rate goes up because i became a lousy year driver, you would be ticked off, right? and that is what we are finding in the business community. a lot of the members of the business community are saying, i do not want to pay for the

mistakes of others. my response to them is, in that case, then you are going to have to actually trust us to set your rates differently from those others. that is what we have proposed. host: louisiana, john joins us on the republican line. caller: i am a retired delta airlines pilot who is currently drawing his pension from the pbgc. when delta declared bankruptcy, our union basically through all of the retirees under the bus and we were turned over to the pbgc. i have not heard much said about how much a person gets compared to what they did get. i will give you some hard numbers. basically, when the pbgc took over, i got 50%, half of what i should be getting from delta air lines. that was 2003 through 2006.

i just got a notice five years later that they did a we compute and i was now going to get $300 per month more, which brings it up to about 62%. i retired at age 60, which was mandatory retirement. in that bankruptcy, many pilots got early retirement, but were not covered by the pbgc. in fact, when delta declare bankruptcy, they got zero and still to this day get zero. those are examples of what the pbgc may be does not do. i am interested in your comment on this. guest: i think it is a tragedy. as you know, i have worked with -- i am actually a fighter pilot, although, barry at of practice. but i have worked with the

pilots union's -- a very art of practice. but i've worked with the putts unions and other airlines, so i have a lot of sympathy. the fact is, as you know, as you are seeing every month, the protection that the pbgc provides, by law, has limits. and that limit is less generous than most private pensions. it is unfortunately the case -- than most pilot pensions. it is unfortunately the case that you are not alone. when airlines, despite pbgc efforts, terminate their pension plans, especially their pilots -- to some extent others, but especially their pilots got insurance to replace part of their pensions, but it was only part. there's nobody that is happy about this. thethe fact is, we do what's

congress lets us do and that is what they let us do. host: you mentioned pilots in particular, but for the private pension plans that pbgc helps with, what percentage of them see a reduction in their rates? guest: i do not know exactly, but fortunately it is not a large percentage of the people we injured. -- insure. but the fact that there are only tens of thousands of them in the millions that we insure is cold comfort. host: is there any way to fight back? like for the color that had his own personal experience that he shared -- of the caller