troop requests -- and troop withdrawal from afghanistan. audrey winston of the brookings institution will outline a report on highly skilled immigrants and focus on the national labor relations board with a law professor from george washington university in "washington journal. " is next. ♪ host: last night the republican hopefuls introduce themselves to primary voters. we want to hear from you. for independents, 202-624-0760. for democrats, 202-624-1111. -- we want to hear from

republicans only. in the boston globe had a similar headline this morning. the gop debate targeting obama, not mitt romney. "the telegraph" says the seven gop target obama last night. we want to hear from republicans only. what do you want to -- what did you think about last night's debate? republicans only this morning. this is "the miami herald."

host: also this morning is "the baltimore sun." "gop hopefuls target obama." host: also says in this story that john huntsman is expected to declare his candidacy soon. we will go to hank in detroit, michigan. what did you think of last night's debate? caller: thank you for "washington journal." i really enjoyed this program. i just did not like it. i expected some discussions about jobs. that was their theme.

where are the jobs? where are the jobs? we are fighting a war over there, but i thought it would touch on casualties. i do not think they did anything for the american people. there was nothing that was helpful in terms of jobs programs or any of that stuff. although the comments calling barack obama a one-term president, it did not appeal to me. i thought that there should have been something about jobs, national security, and some of the other important issues. host: there was one question asked at the beginning about jobs. did you hear any good responses from the candidates on that issue?

caller: that is what was so disappointing. every time there were intelligent questions, the answer, tim pawlenty kept asking, the man beside you that in the news -- -- maligned in the news. there was no action. they have got to do something. have some excitement out there. host: who surprised you last night? caller: there was only one person that surprised me and that was michelle bachman. she seemed pretty well rehearsed, but it seems like running for president is just a

money game anyways. they collect our money and it is like a game they are playing. you know? host: leave it there. i want to show the viewers what you were talking about last night. >> the issue that was raised in a question from the reporter was what were the similarities between the two. i cited his own words to look to massachusetts as a guide. >> you chose those words. one of my questions -- why would you choose those words? your rival was standing right there. >> president obama is the person who i quoted in saying that he looked to massachusetts for designing his program.

erm obamney careba reflected that he designed his health care program on the massachusetts program host: the former -- program. host: mitt romney was declared the major debate winner. according to political operatives and party operatives. host: we want to show you what mitt romney had to say about the phrase obamney care. >> there are similarities and differences. obama care spends trillions of

dollars and raises $500 billion of taxes. third, obama care takes $500 million out of medicare. we did not do that. ours was a state plan and if they did not like it, they could change it. [no audio] which is why states are the right place for this kind of responsibility. host: in vienna, helen, what did you think? caller: i agree with the gentleman that called the first time. it was the same old thing. there were no questions. no aunt -- no new answers to what they always said. they did not say anything about producing jobs or anything with taxes as far as the oil companies.

they did not say anything, did they even ask anything about medicare? host: they did. caller: they did? i guess i missed that part. other than that i did not see any difference in anything they have already said. with michelle bachman saying that we are going to make him a one-term president? i am so tired of hearing the same old thing. they say that we are going to make a better, but i do not hear anyone suggesting what we are going to do as far as jobs or whatever. host: john, md., good morning. you are on the air. caller: i am a republican. but these guys didn't appear to have no solution to no problem.

we are going to have a deficit, no question, no matter who is in there. but who gets to spend the money? they are not out for the country. they are out for a little groups of themselves. nothing really advanced much under obama, but definitely not here. host: all right. we will go to valerie in michigan. caller: i love that the debates. i thought that they were great. either these people were not listening or they just were not paying attention. i heard them say plenty of jobs. jobs come from the private sector. it is not the government that

creates the jobs. they can create them in the public sector, but not the private sector. we are the ones that have done the work out. they need to bring it back to, like michele bachman said, they need to bring it back as far as bringing down taxes on employers, taking away the regulations that they put on their backs. they said a lot about jobs. if the people had been listening, they would have heard that. host: who stood out to you? caller: hard questions. i thought they were all good. i like mitt romney. but i really liked michele bachman. i thought that when she first came out, she presented herself really well to the country. she told everyone that she is a tax-litigator and has had 23

foster children as well as five of her own. as far as repealing obama-care, we have got to do that. host: what concerns you about michelle bodman being the nominee? caller: what concerns me? host: do you have any concerns? caller: she has been in washington for -- what, six years? so, she is pretty well familiar with the establishment in washington. i really do not have any concerns. i like them all and it will be a hard decision, but for right now i thought that she came out front and center, giving a lot of information. i got a lot of information out over any ways. -- out of her anyway.

host: what about the potential for sarah palin? caller: she has the capacity. the people in her state love her. there has got to be a reason for that. but the media tears for up. but i do not listen to what the media says any more, as they do not tell the truth about anything. host: here is what ron paul had to say. >> u.s. money made overseas, then it comes holding its pack. if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money, deregulating. invite people to go back to work again. as long as we run a program of the liberal it weakening of our

currency, our jobs will go overseas. that is what happened for a good many years. host: kim, va., what did you think of the debate? caller: i thought that it was awesome. i love bomb out -- mitt romney and michele bodman. i do not know what the other callers were talking about. they talked about getting rid of a lot of the regulation in the economy. one problem that i will say, and i want to say that it was the format of the debate, they did not have long enough to elaborate on the answers. they could not go into a lot of detail. host: from the moderator's perspective, they want to ask as many questions as possible.

so, you want less questions and more answers? caller: it was like they were trying to cut them off. he was trying to cram in too much. host: coverage of campaign 2012 continues on this that were. including speeches, interviews, campaign appearances and interviews for archival information from all of those candidates, political reporters, and links to the seas been political reporters. c-span.org/campaign.

michael, you are next. caller: i like mitt romney and michelle bodman. i really like ron paul. the republican party is starting to pull together now. we are starting to give some real answers on the economy. i think that mitt romney is the strongest candidate. i did say that the republicans were going to have to pull together and realize that we need single payer health insurance. after the election of 1946 they out, and we all have to, but it means raising taxes. eventually it will be like ro mney care in massachusetts.

in the meantime the republic is bankrupt. we saw it last night in the debate. host: what did you think of newt gingrich last night? caller: i like newt gingrich. he is a very good guy. very smart professor. but he has too much baggage and i think he should give it up. host: all right. here is what some had to say about last night. >> it was a very narrow question about the republicans in opposing the unpopular bill on the american people. if you are dealing with something as big as medicare and you cannot have a conversation with the country, you had better

slow down. we learned that with obama because he said -- he ran over us when we said not to do it. host: republicans only this morning. we will continue to take your phone calls. other things today -- here is "the washington journal." host: more is in "the wall street journal" if you are

interested in that. the headline from the event that yesterday -- from the event yesterday, obama plans new jobs. from "the washington post" -- five of the biggest companies are on the job council. they rely on foreign revenue for the majority of their sales. host: also this morning, something that you will hear about today, the controversy over congressman anthony wiener.

host: the democratic caucus will be meeting on the house side today and this will likely be a topic. this from "the wall street journal" --

host: atlanta beach, florida. go ahead. caller: the first callers, i do not know what they were talking about. that debate last night was fantastic. i am a huge herman cain fan and i wanted to see what the other people look like. based on the descriptions given by, we are low they are for obama -- we all know that they are for obama. michele hoffman and mitt romney did fantastic jobs. i would like ron paul to be the secretary of the treasury. he has great answers on what to do with our money and the monetary policy. we need to get the value of the

dollar back up. helping to get us out of this recession. host: who is the front runner right now? caller: i believe that it is mitt romney. i also think that michele bock manpower's climbed the ladder last night. -- michele hoffman -- michele bachman climbed that the letter last night. newt gingrich, great ideas, but that personal that it all of those wives and a line of credit at a jewelry chain -- it has nothing to do with running for president, but the media has seized on that. host: what answer from a shell bachman -- from michele bachman stands out to you?

caller: that she was pro-life. i liked her stance on jobs. she did not hesitate with her answers and she had great conviction. she was not just spouting talking points. she seems to believe what she is saying. host: we will show you highlights the day. we will air again on saturday. go to c-span.org for more details. here is what michelle bachman had to say about the tea party. >> unlike how the media has had to raleigh and grossly portrayed the tea party, they are really made up of disaffected democrats, independents, people that have never been political in their life. a wide swath of america coming together. that is why the left fielder is so much. they are simply people that want

to take the country back. host: this headline is from "that bill." "mitt romney's focus is tim pawlenty." host: maryland, cathy, you are next. caller: i watched the debates. i just cannot find myself to be

enthusiastic about the republican party right now i know that once they take power in medicaid and social security, all of the things i have been working for decades to achieve, i am not too enthusiastic about the representatives that i saw last night. they were not talking about what was important to me. jobs, social security. host: republicans only this morning for another 20 minutes. jessica, what do you think of the gop field and how it is shaping up melancholic " it was a fantastic -- stand it -- shaping up? caller: it was fantastic. it is great to see a viable female candidate. i cannot wait to see michelle kaufman as the first female president. host: from the senate --

it has become a standard auto fuel additive. a potentially bigger fight is brewing in the house over subsidized vehicle conversion host: also in the senate, here is "the washington times" again.

.ost: lawrenceville, ga., ed go ahead. caller: any one of these candidates would do a better job in office. every day that obama is in office, my home keeps going down in value. caller:, missouri, nancy, good morning. caller: i was really impressed with the debate last night. especially tim pawlenty and michele bodman. i thought that the grave -- i thought that they gave great

answers. i like rick santorum as well. i cannot wait until we have another president. my brother's business is barely hanging on because he cannot get financial backing from the bank thanks to mr. obama. i am sad about that. i think that we need a president who understands what business is all about. host: who'd you think is the true conservative of those candidates that you saw last night. caller: the true conservative would seem to be with santorum. host: so, it is more social issues for you? caller: guess. host: let's see what but santorum had to say about pro- life. >> not only have i been consistently pro-life, i have

taken the palais and the bullets to spearhead changes on those issues. what is this president going to do when he comes to office? host: michael, north carolina. caller: i felt that ron paul did the best job last night. maybe because he is actually going to help out the military a whole lot. helping with our credibility in the middle east. host: this is "usa today" and its editorial about last night's debate.

host host: jack, your thoughts

belladonna -- fothoughts? caller: what happened to the information from the gulf of mexico on the oil spill? is it supposed to be ironic that gas prices went up after that incident? host: what did you think? caller: are you talking to me? host: i am talking to you. caller: the debate was fine. but the republicans, we focused too much on obama. we never talk about what we are going to do for the country. what we are going to do to change the economics.

complaining about obama makes us look bad. and are helping us to improve here they look week. host: at the committee for the responsible federal budget there is a conference the day featuring ben bernanke. members host: idaho falls, judy, good morning.

caller: i did not see anyone last night that could defeat obama. host: why not? caller: they are all too far, far right to catch of the center and we will see it what happens. host: this will be the first president since john kennedy to meet with four regions.

with populations going up 75% over the past decade. and i would prefer a male president, but i thought that jesus was wonderful. the rest of the group, mitt romney seems to be just a little bit too moderate for me. i would hope that that kid would pick michelle bodman players in

the world, there are only five women or six women. a woman team has never won a national title, even though there are more players than them. i would prefer someone with a stronger mind in the white house. that is the primary reason. host: this is from san francisco this morning with a story about mitt romney.

host: florida, c. j., you are next. caller: hello. i like mitt romney and michele bachman and another thing. but first three people that you had calling this morning, i do tag calls all of the time. those people are democrats. they always believe that they can cover the republicans. you know darn good and well that those people live democrats and it does not do anything but just exacerbate our hostility towards them and i know that he taught

school. i had not been able to call for months. you know what? obama got more money and from the corporations than the republican bid. that is the dirty little secret that no one was the talk about. host: you are right, it is not fair for democrats to call in when we ask for republicans only. we want to show you news from last night's debate. >> first, the statement was -- would i be comfortable with a muslim in my administration? not that i would not appoint one. that is the exact transcript. i would not be careful because there are people that are

muslims and regular people that are muslims. when i was talking about comfort, i was talking about the kind that is a killer. i do not believe in sharia lot in american court. host: frederick, davenport, go ahead. caller: i watched the entire debate last night. all of the republicans sounded very good. great republican leadership coming. but then you have the elected -- i just have one comment that made me feel kind of sad. i heard that mitt romney, more than likely the one that might get the republican endorsement, had in the past work for a company -- i forget the name of the company, but there was a

movie out at one time called open " other people's money." that is what he was doing. taking corporations, stripping them down, putting the people on unemployment and shipping the rest overseas. i am saying that he is one of the biggest problems we have had in terms of the exploits of american jobs. i was told that he made almost billions of dollars doing this. i am kind of concerned about him, saying that he will try to do something to help jobs? i think that we will lose a lot of jobs. i am concerned about that. host: coverage of campaign 2012 kicks off and we are covering a lot of the candidates, giving speeches, traveling to those

early primary states. coverage is also on. go to the web site for more information. ohio, your next. caller: good morning. col.k you for taking call - i do not know why they called this a debate. it was a tax on this, attacks on that. i want to see some people in the republican party who are rich -- willing to go against what the republicans are doing. i lived in ohio and i can see what they are trying to do to the working class. who is going to stand up and say -- what you are doing is wrong. people will call and say that he is not a republican because i disagree.

you do not have to be a republican to agree with everything. host: naples, co-head. caller: i did not see the debate. i am for newt gingrich. i think he is the smartest man in the united states. i read two of his books and that he cannot be beat. host: this is from "the daily collar." a piece that was posted on sunday, he writes --

no way that she can be elected. i have told the story in many ways, more than once. i am pretty convinced she is running and in doing so will damage the prospect of a conservative defeating obama in 2012." steve, go ahead. caller: hello. like the previous caller, i like newt gingrich. i have for quite awhile. in just sorry that his people walked out -- i am just sorry that his people walked out a couple of weeks ago.

given regards to what you just read for sarah palin, i do not like her. i agree with the article. she will hurt the party chances. host: why is that? caller: i think that she is a joke. she has stuck herself out there with all of this other stuff. she has tried to keep herself in the news and i do not like it. i do not like what she has done. i thought that she brought mccain that only a couple of years ago. -- brought down mccain a couple of years ago. host: tammy duckworth has resigned her post as the assistant secretary of veterans affairs.

the south for the t party owes the city of bogor baton lumpur -- poker ton -- boca raton. announcing in an e-mail that she is launching a new political action committee. an organization that was part of a plan to put an end to the aggressive efforts of harry reid in 2012. also, patrick murphy asked supporters to help. he had been out of office for six months. he was recruited in the fight to rally the liberal base." diane, california, good morning. you are on the air. go ahead. caller: the debate was awesome

last night. i will tell you what. i know michele bachman, at what -- at one time i set that i would take sarah palin as president, but right now i think that michele bachman is doing very well. i am not crazy about mitt romney. but i was pleased with all of them in some way. newt gingrich, secretary of state. i think that he is fabulous. he would make a good secretary of state. if ron paul does not take him, he would make a good secretary of state. host: in other news, a front- page story from "the washington post." "expanding the hunt for al qaeda operatives in the country ." that is the front page this morning. we want to show you another

highlight from last night's debate. this is tim pawlenty defending his economic plan that he recently outlined. >> this president would use america as an equal to those around the world. we are not the same as portugal or argentina. this idea that we cannot have 5% growth, it is hogwash. it is a defeatist attitude. host: that was tim pawlenty from that -- last night's debate. if you want to see the entire debate, we will be airing it again on saturday. go to c-span.org for more details. when we come back after a show -- a short break, we will be speaking with congressman jason chaffetz. we will be right back here ♪

-- we will be right back. ♪ >> connect with c-span on line with the latest schedule updates and video on twitter, continuing conversations on facebook, and programming highlights on howard youtube channel. connect today. >> [unintelligible] >> 40 years ago this week, "the new york times" publish the first installment of the

pentagon papers. you can watch perspectives from historians in the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. >> every weekend it is american history tv on c-span 3. saturday morning, what personal interviews on historic events. our history bookshelf features some of the best known history writers. revisit battles and the events during the 150th anniversary of the civil war. go behind-the-scenes at museums and historic sites on "american artifacts." the president -- we will look at the presidential legacy. see that in spite -- the complete schedule at c-span.org /history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jason chaffetz, welcome

back to "the washington journal" table. you are one of 20 house republicans that voted yes on a move to sponsor libya, sponsored by dennis kucinich, accelerating troop withdrawal from afghanistan. why? caller: -- guest: it is the right policy to bring our troops home. if we are going to use american military might and there is no clear and present danger to the united states, the president should be coming to the congress. the civil war in libya, quite frankly we should not be using military forces there the way that we are. if the president wants to make that case, he should come to the u.s. congress for that authorization. for the president to say that he

had authorization from the united nations is offensive to a lot of us. as far as afghanistan, i call myself a hawkish person but we should not be participating in this nation-building exercise. we need to focus on counter- terrorism. as i have argued for the last couple of years, it is time to bring the troops home. the president has failed to find victory in afghanistan. of course we want to make sure that there is no safe haven. but 100,000 of our troops in afghanistan is too much. host: the cost? guest: $1 million per person, per year, and we will spend more than $100 billion over 12 months. we cannot sustain that. americans will take any fight to secure the homeland, but there

is no clear and present danger in afghanistan to the united states of america and we have to reexamine what we are doing. host: here is the editorial. "progress is fragile and irreversible." host: it goes on to say that " advocates are calling further

operations in afghanistan unnecessary. that the u.s. can no longer afford the expense." guest: we are already paying huge costs. the fundamental flaw is that they assume the taliban poses a clear and present danger to the united states of america and the current afghan government. contrary to the national intelligence estimate. the flaw is that there is some sort of threat to our homeland where these people will somehow attack kansas, for instance. there is no doubt that that country is on a very difficult path. the problem that i have is that the current government is a

corrupt government. we know that the government is fundamentally flawed, corrupt, and will not ultimately solve the problem. at some point the afghan people have to take care of the rhone. i am not saying that we do have zero troops there, but 100,000 people? we are in a nation-building exercise. i do not think that we can sustain that. nor do i think it is the proper role of the united states. host: according to "the christian science monitor" they have been there -- guest: it is the history of the united states of america. my argument is that the troops have been very successful. the troops that were there before when we did not have very many troops, they were very successful.

in 2009 leon panetta came on a program and said that there were less than 50 al qaeda in the entire country. let's give some credit to the men and women who are there. host: are you refusing to listen to the commanders on the ground? guest: we are getting conflicting reports. the former commander general said that he believes in these hunter killer teams. we need to have counter- terrorism efforts going on not just there, but around the world, and not participate in nation building. ask the united states what we're doing in afghanistan. we are fighting terrorism? if you challenge the same people, challenge the president, what does victory look like? it is certainly not putting our tail between our legs.

host: the front page of "the washington post close " had this story about yemen -- "the washington post" had this story about yemen. what do you make of that? guest: we have to have the best intelligence. it has slipped over time. when we have it, we have to act upon it. osama bin laden is dead now, which is very satisfying. that fight is global in nature and that the same time, we are going to have to be very targeted i am what we do. host: by july 15 there is a plan to withdraw slowly under

military guidance between 12 months and 18 months. is that something that you could get behind bella guest: potentially. congress should not micromanage it. that is clearly not our role. if it is moving in that trajectory, that is what we should do. it cannot be done in a matter of days, even one month. host: you are on the government oversight committee and of the subcommittee. $7 million in iraqi reconstruction money may have been stolen, as washington perseveres with attempts to track down the funds and in

several different pockets it is quite scary, this money walking out the door with no accountability. the challenge for this administration is to show and demonstrate accountability. not just for foreign aid, but in iraq and afghanistan. great pieces were written in "the new york times" about the banking situation. yet there are billions of dollars that we do not know where they are. investigations will continue. host: you are holding them? guest: gas, a lot of people are working on this right now. great work being done by the investigator general. not just with moving forward.

i do not think that there would be accountability. host: how does $7 billion disappear? guest: that is where treasury has to come forward and s -- how do these things happen? it can be very difficult situations, very volatile parts of the world, allowing money to move a in a way that is more difficult to track? they are on top of it, but did not have these controls in place when we started. there is nothing more infuriating to americans. host: tell viewers something that would surprise that. being on the ground, what was

surprising. caller: when you get into baghdad is a cement wall. in is still not returned to a way of life that will be sustainable. the biggest for it -- the biggest transformation that will -- that we will take place , they listed the core functions of the state department that the military usually does, saying that they are only able to do seven of them tell. if rocket fire is taken, one of my committees told me that they would not fire back. better to rely upon the iraqis to take care that. and we will still be spending a massive amount of money.

i think that the number is something like 7000 people, but it will still be there in country. host: waiting to talk to you is a democrat from texas. aaron, go ahead. caller: good morning and. i have two problems. i lost one nephew in 2005 in iraq. he said that before he died, you never knew why he was there. he said the two were there because of the contracts that halliburton and all of those companies that you have over there -- he lost his job in shreveport him was relocated to afghanistan. in 30 days my niece ships off to afghanistan to build schools

there -- guest: thank you for your service and sacrifice. there are a lot of people just like you who sent off their loved ones into war to serve as a contractor. we sent nearly 500 troops from utah overseas. there are a lot of families making that sacrifice. people step up and answer the call to serve. i happen to believe that we should be diminishing those numbers and bringing our troops home. i think the time has come to do that. i think the president owes it to the american people to define what success is in afghanistan. i think we are on the right

trajectory in iraq. i do not see much difference in the way he is doing. that is fine, too. we are turning the keys back over to iraq. i totally disagree with what the president is doing in libya. he should come to the united states congress and made the case to go to war. he still failed to come to the congress and provide us with the information that we need. we should vote on this. come make that case to congress. he has not done that. host: and steve in maine, an independent caller. caller: i agree with your host a lot. i have followed foreign affairs. people like karzei -- they have

such initiative. nothing has been done in a decade. drug dealer.just a half of the country is his customers. libya is another strange one. all of these presidents seem to be stepping right in line with what makes a good enemy for the parliament to verify their large budgets. i don't know. the whole region wants to go democracy or more democracy than our dictators, yet we are constantly putting our foot in the front of their face. just keep up the good work. it just amazes me how washington can shell out so much money for these people based on absolutely

no background of the president over there. guest: thank you and good morning. it is a stunning amount of money in a time when we are in fiscal peril. i think americans would pay any price to secure the homeland and keep ourselves safe and secure. what is the mystery is what we are participating in wars that do not make sense, that the president is not coming to the american people or the congress to make his case. i think it is wrong. i think we have somewhat been in net in the house to hold the president accountable. i do not think we have lived up to what has laid out in the constitution. it is terribly disappointing and frustrating as a member of congress because i think we should have more debate on this. host: jason chaffetz. a republican in charlotte, n.c..

caller: good morning. i have a question, a follow-up to your statement, that you are disappointed in the actions of congress. i am terribly disappointed. i want my country back. this congress is showing me time and again how unreliable you are in opposing the constitution. here is my question. i have two questions. why isn't president obama under a bill of impeachment? he has declared war without the constitutional backing of our congress. that is worthykehing of an impeachment bill is the president's signing statement when he rebuttal to the congress section 2362 when the congress withdrew its funds for

these indigo and erroneous czars, and yet the congress withdrew funds, and this president overwrote congress' wishes. guest: first of all, thank you and good morning. i think the senate has also been inept. the senate has not lived up to its constitutional duty to hold the president accountable. i think the record is clearly reflected. house republicans as we started off congress -- one of my absolute favorite came in and spoke to the house republicans. one of the things he said is the challenge before the congress is at relevancy. are you going to become relevant? is it going to be the congressional record that will

move this country forward? or is it going to be the federal registry which is where the president will publish these rules? that is where i do not think we have lived up very strongly in making sure we put in check the president's power in his rulemaking authority. i think we have been slow to the game in that regard. we have done some things. it is a mixed bag. i think as it relates to the war, we have fallen short. host: from "the wall street journal," --

guest: i think the president and the democrats reserve to introduce a plan. i am on the house budget committee. i think we did the responsible thing, introducing a budget that pays off the debt. the democrats have never ever put forward a plan that balances the president's budget over time. they are going to talk about deficit and debt reduction, you have to put forward a balanced budget. i think they owe it to us to do that. nor have i seen a plan from the democrats saying let's try this formula. a lot of us believe that the financial peril we face is the single greatest threat to the quality of life that we have here in the united states of america. and a lot of us -- we had a vote on raising the debt ceiling a

couple of weeks ago. a stunning number that people have to internalize is that right now today the federal government is spending 25 cents out of every dollar that is spent in this country. you cannot sustain that. it is unsustainable. right now, 25 cents out of every dollar? c'mon. that is an unsustainable amount of money. everyone knows it. we have got to make some major changes. this is going to force the issue. host: are you open to some sort of deal that reduces spending but also looks at tax deductions that are favorable to many americans, maybe the mortgage interest deduction, etc.?

guest: i want the democrats to put forward any sort of plan. host: but you personally, from your viewpoint, is this something you can agree to? guest: i want to broaden the base and lower the rate on corporate income tax. i do not think we should have any sort of tax increase. we are already borrowing, taxing, and spending too much money. we are not taxing people too much. can we get rid of a lot of the loopholes? absolutely. we talk about that in their budget. i do not think right now is the time to raise taxes. when you look at the american business community and gas prices, democrats are saying we need to have -- that is not going to drive down the price of gasoline. we are not going to drive the economy forward and make life

more palatable to people by raising taxes on fuel. that is not going to get us where we need to go. we are $1.60 trillion upside- down in terms of our annual deficit. we have to solve that by cutting spending. host: ron in miami. go ahead. caller: the president said that you would send no trips to libya, nror plane or helicopters. second, we did not need to be in iraq. iraq was a stabilizing force in that region. they were terrible, but they stabilize it. yes, afghanistan and osama bin laden cost 9/11. third, what you said about no corporate welfare, that is what you are doing because they pay you off with their lobbyists.

that is the truth. guest: i take exception to that last comment. good morning. as it relates to libya, it does scare me what we are doing there because i do not think the president has come to the congress to make the case to get the resources and backing of the american people. what he said when he announced he was going to join in the effort is he got authorization from the united nations. authorization comes from the united states congress. the president has still filled on this. -- failed on this. in terms of iraq, i was only elected to congress and the 111th congress. i am starting my third year. based on the information presented, i thought i would have supported that. based on what we know now, i do not think we should have gone

into iraq in the first place. host: this is an e-mail from one of our viewers -- guest: again, i think congress has not lived up to its constitutional duties and responsibilities of holding the president in check. the constitution clearly lays out that the congress is the one to declare war. you are right. for ticket, that has not happened. host: -- for decades, that does not happen. caller: i have an accounting entry that can save us or add something like $390 billion to our balance sheet. the treasury has something like 262 million ounces of gold on

its books that is valued at $42 an ounce. why not market to market, which is roughly 15 or 20 an ounce right now. congress has the power to do this. secondly, i have a question regarding the federal reserve. it offends me that the federal reserve seems to have one of its primary functions to debase the dollars that i saved. is there anything we can do about it? guest: i think there is something we can do about it. i am proud of the fact that john boehner named ron paul as the chairman of the subcommittee. in fact, i told ron one of the things i would love to do is let's go see the gold.

this is done in to me. we were told that we could not do that. what do you mean? the people cannot see the actual gold? it causes a lot of eyebrows to raise it. i would like to go see it. we are going to try to push that issue. i think what ron paul has done is to have an audit of the federal reserve. i co-sponsored the bill in the last congress. it is reasonable for the american people to have some exposure to what is happening there. all of this starts with having an audit of the federal reserve. that seems like a reasonable position to me. host: lancaster, pa., philip is on our republican line. caller: yes, i agree with the previous caller. i think ron pollack is the only candidate that is running on the republican docket that has any

common sense. these guys get off on these half-ass schemes. they're only working for themselves. ron paul is a man who if he says he is going to do something, he does it. he follows through. host: would you vote for ron paul for president cholesteric he was one of the candidates. the guest: ron pollack is a great guy -- ron pollack is a great guy. -- ron paul is a great guy. michele bachmann offers a very conservative viewpoint. i like her as well. i think they have a lot to offer to the discussion. as far as running for president -- one of my top goals is that i

would like to see somebody who can beat barack obama. based on last night, from my vantage point, mitt romney is in the best position to do that. host: why is that? guest: his background in business and his understanding to get this country moving forward with jobs, i think he is the one who can do that. he has that sort of business background. he understands how capital formation works. if we are worried about jobs in the economy and getting strength back, i think he will actually do that. host: do you want to repeal health care? guest: yes, one of the first votes we had was to repeal obamacare. host: what about the concerns that many people have with massachusetts? guest: i think mitt romney is the first to say where the

fundamental perils are. one was done at the state level, and the other was done at the federal level. i do not think there should be a one size fits all approach to health care at the federal level. those types of things have to happen, should happen, and will be the most successful when they happen at the state level. that is the way we should operate in the united states of america, to drive it down to the local level so you can get the best results for those people. host: is mitt romney still the front runner? guest: he has been very successful and is very passionate and patriotic. he has a lot to offer to the discussion. if your number one goal is let's be barack obama, i think mitt romney -- he has a strong

organization in the fact that he has been doing this for years. i am not endorsing anybody at this point. i have a great respect for these candidates. host: have these candidates been reaching out to you? the guest: yes, you see them coming up to capitol hill and what not. host: are they asking for your support this early? guest: in a gentle type of way. yes, you can see and feel the acceleration that is happening now. host: it sounds like you are going to back mitt romney as it stands right now. guest: i want to be barack obama. yes, i love mitt romney but i am not endorsing anyone at this point. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] -- brought up about the

presidential debate. the presidential debate is just like fox news. they have no solutions to no problems. all they talk about is barack obama. everything you bring up is about barack obama. libya has nothing to do with whether the president gets authorization. it is still about barack obama. if you ask the republican leaders about anything, it is about barack obama and the election. they have no solutions. they want to raise the debt on the backs of the poor. they want to cut everything from poor people. host: client is saying is you do not have your own ideas and -- glenn is saying you do not have

your own ideas. guest: i think if you look at the economy, the state of jobs in this country, we are failing. i would hope that would be objective as a possibly could be. when you have 80% increase in discretionary spending over the last three years when you count the stimulus, i think you have to hold somebody accountable. in this case, i think it is the president. he does not have a plan to balance the budget but i do not want to be hyper-partisan, but the president has no plan. when the president's budget and before the senate, there was not a single democratic vote for it. there is something wrong here. if the president does not have a plan, we need somebody on top of the hill that actually has one. the point is, if the president

and the democrats want to have a counter, and then offer a plan. here we are coming up on a debt ceiling situation. john boehner has turned out several different options for every dollar increase that you want to have. maybe there should be a corresponding decrease in spending. that is a very reasonable starting point. host: we will go on to chris in houston. caller: good morning. as a conservative, i would like to first say that i appreciate your efforts in trying to cut the budget and reduce spending and so on and so forth. in regards to afghanistan, since everybody is concerned about the economy these days, do you think withdrawing now would be a little bit premature considering some of the resources and the geopolitical

considerations in the middle east? economically, like the lithium deposits and other resources. even though it is the longest war we have ever had, it has been under-funded for much of the time. i think if we did what general stand a crystal recommended, we would be in a much better position today. guest: i think if you are going to go to war, you go with everything you have it. -- have. if you are going to go, you do not code gingerly. you go with everything you have. at this point, i think we need to reevaluate what we are doing there. there are other resources that could be developed. it is a very difficult situation in afghanistan.

these people have been at war for decades. 80% plus of the country has no electricity 80% plus of the country has no more than a second grade education. that begs the question, what are we doing there? should we be participating in this effort? i believe we should be focusing on counter-terrorism on the global nature. host: george is watching us from brooklyn, a republican. go ahead, georgia. caller: good morning. i will like to ask about the george bush administration. what has the george bush administration been doing -- there are the ones who got us in these problems to begin with, with all of their spending and wars. those are the ones we should be looking at it. where were you people went george bush -- >> guest: i unseeded a 12-year

republican because i argued they blew it. i think they did over-spend. i agree with you. that is the argument i made with the people of utah, and they agreed with me. i think they did some very good things, but i thought it was a mixed bag. if you wanted for results, you are going to have to select different people. i want by the huge margin. -- won by a huge margin. it is important to look back, but elections and the future is all about the future and where we are going. i understand the frustration. host: will that be your campaign theme? guest: perhaps. i have thought about it. as senator hatch -- he served in

the senate close to 36 years. at the same time, 42 years in the senate seemed excessive. and i fundamentally disagree with senator hatch on many issues. my family is very supportive and they have always been supportive of what i do. i serve at the will of the people of utah. what would they like me to do? it is been a very resounding yes. please run for that. these things start so early. we are already talking about the next election. not much is going to happen before labor day. host: so you might announce after labor day? guest: yes. host: do you have a timeline for a decision?

guest: that is not something i am going to share with you today. you always have to work on raising money, but it is not the most important thing for me. i spend a fraction of what most races do. these are multimillion-dollar events. host: don't you think you need more money? guest: if it is about how much money you can spend, of course he is going to win that. i think it is about who can do more with less. i have argued that how you run your campaign is very indicative of how you will run in your office. i am going to be fiscally prudent par. host: if he comes out and flexes his muscles to show -- >> hguest: he has already done

that. host: is that not a factor? guest: it does not bother me. when you are talking about the debt, deficit, the money does not matter. you want to be able to get out there and communicate. if i run, it will not be based on 30-second advertisement. it will be based on town hall meetings. host: more phone calls are waiting for you. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am very confused. i do not know if i am ignorant or this congressman is ignorant or he is just deliberately misleading the people, but it seems to me that we signed a treaty with nato, and nato goes to the un to ask to do something within the world, and that is

the way the treaty works. barack obama did not declare war with u.s. troops in libya. we went together with nato with the treaty that we signed. they got permission from the u.n. to send troops along with nato as a coalition. we did not declare war. part of that treaty does not say barack obama needs to go to congress. guest: we did not declare war, but i think -- it was my colleague who was questioning somebody on the panel. if another country partners or ships off the coast of new york and started firing, would we consider that an act of war? of course we would. we are participating in war. you cannot just try to get through it by some other

technicality. we are at war with libya. consequently, the present has a duty and obligation under the constitution to come to report to congress, and he has not done that. i think that his black-and- white and an objective viewpoint. host: we will get in one last phone call. robert in florida, an independent. caller: i really applaud you for coming on television and saying stop the war. the first color -- you never really answered her question about what eisenhower called the military industrial complex. how come we can spend so much money -- it just completely blows people away that this is

happening. i would like you to answer the question, how come all the money is going to these people who are corrupt. the whole reason why obama is able to go into another country and invade it -- the congress is the one who received the power to the president in the first place. guest: i agree with the caller on that point. i think we need to get more in tune with the constitution. we spend a stunning amount of money. more people are surprised that we actually cut back defense spending. secretary gates put forward a plan, tens of billions of dollars, that he wanted to scale back over the course of time. i happen to concur with that. roughly 4% of gdp. it has been in the 4.6% range.

we have the very best military in the world. they can do anything. at the same time, we also have to hold them accountable. they need to go through the process of trimming debt back and becoming the fighting force that we need for the 21st century. host: congressman, thank you for being with us. in 45 minutes, we are going to be talking about this headline -- you may have been hearing about the national labor relations board related to this situation. we are going to talk about what the board is, who sits on it, etc. up next, we are going to turn our attention to a new report. first, a news update. >> an update on last night's gop debate -- president candidate tim pawlenty in remarks today

on "the early show" is it denying he softened his criticism of mitt romney presence of health-care policy following his comments on network talk show this past sunday where he likened his health care measure in massachusetts to president obama's health plan passed last year. he went on to say that he did not try to soft pedal the issue in the debate, and he did use the reference again when pressed by the moderator. two of the other republican candidates are congressmen, and they are back in washington today. members will consider boosting funding for the military. you can watch alive house coverage on c-span. the military continues operations in several countries. two american soldiers were killed today while in the southern part of the country.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> next month, author, activist linda hogan. join our three-hour conversation, taking your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets on c-span2. the c-span network -- we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, books, and american history. it is all available to you. find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road, bringing our resources to your

community. the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes. provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: audrey singer is the metropolitan policy senior fellow at the brookings institution, here to talk about a report about the immigrant population in this country. highly skilled workers now outnumber lower skilled ones. let's begin with what immigrants are we talking about? guest: we used census data that the census bureau collects from all residents in the united states. this is not the 2010 census. we used the question about birthplace. we used all people who said they were foreign-born, people born outside of the united states to foreign-born parents.

these include a legal permanent resident, a green card holders, temporary immigrants, refugees, students, people here on other kinds of business and visas. host: how did it happen that a highly skilled workers now outnumber lower skilled workers? guest: we looked at education levels of immigrants in the united states. we defined high skilled as a college degree or more. those that are low-skilled do not have a high-school diploma. we look at those three groups over time. you can see a convergence. the high skilled group grew faster. sometime around five years ago, the high skilled group outnumbered the low-skilled group. host: we have the study linked

on our website. it starts to decline of around 2006, 2007. what does this mean? guest: is an indication of where the economy has been going. it means that we have a really diverse set of immigrants living in this country, one that we do not necessarily recognized because a lot of the discussion has been around legal status and managing immigration and controlling the borders. a third factor, i think, is that immigrants across different places in the u.s. are really variable. host: why has this happened? what are the reasons? guest: partly, this structure

that i just talked of a pret. the demand for high school workers has been on the rise. -- high skill workers has been on the rise. the supply of high skilled immigrants have also increased during this time. we have more international student here as well. many are able to stay on longer, some of them permanently. an h1b visa is a temporary work visas for workers with at least a college degree, typically. host: this is a headline from " politico" -- what do you make of that?

guest: it is an interesting call. we are hearing this more from the business community and people who employ high skilled workers, that we need to open the doors wider. we do have a lot of high skilled people but it is not always a one to one match. host: what about college grads in the united states? they are graduating right now, and these companies do not want them -- do not want them necessarily. guest: i think a lot of companies are perfectly happy and willing to hire homegrown graduates here. i think their argument is that demand is outstripping supply. these things do not always work out on the ground the way they should one of our recommendation. in the report is that we have to know better how our policies

reflect different economic issues, including what it means to bring in more high skilled workers. one of our recommendations is to support a commission on labor and immigration. we do not have a lot of knowledge about how certain kinds of visas affect conditions like wages, unemployment, and those kinds of things. we need to know more. the primary purpose of that commission would be able to make more timely changes to our immigration policy instead of waiting for a major overhaul. one of the key things that we support -- we are not one of the only groups that has recommended this. but we would like to see state and global input to that. those are places that know well what is going on in their

localities. host: you mentioned geography. 44 of the nation's largest metropolitan areas are highly skilled immigrant destinations in which college educated immigrants out number 25%. why? where are they going and what are the reasons? the guest: of the high skilled workers are mostly located in areas of the northeast and midwest. there are some on the west coast as well. these differences have to do with the industrial and economic conditions on the ground. different demands and different places require different kinds of workers. where we see the lower skilled, particularly in the southeastern -- sorry, in the southwest, the more traditional settlement area for mexican and

other latin american immigrants, these are also places -- they have this history of long settlement, but they also have metropolitan areas like los vegas and areas like phoenix that experienced a boom associated with the housing industry. immigrants were going there to work in that industry. host: why metropolitan towns surrounded by college campuses? guest: there is a big draw are around universities. they draw high school professors and researchers, as well as students who are coming from abroad. host: if our callers want to weigh in on the conversation --

from michigan. caller: i work for the federal government. a lot of the high skilled workers that came on visas get low pay supplied by corporations to pay them low initially, and as soon as they get their green cards, they switch companies and take higher paid jobs that americans could do. i know full well there are a lot of people who are americans that could do the computer work that these people were doing. i saw that over and over again at the agency i work for. guest: i think it is hard to know about the business practices of specific companies, but these are stores that we hear, that there are mismatches between hiring and employment decisions and the supply of workers.

overall, i think there are arguments on both sides of this. it is hard toagree about one particular place or one particular industry. host: gary is a republican caller. gary, can you start over? caller: yes. the cost of keeping illegal immigrants in school, food, housing, and jobs is somewhere in the $426 billion. it would take about $42 million to export them back to their home countries and give back the jobs to our people. guest: one thing that we have to think about is the long-term effect of immigration on society as well as our work force. when you look at population growth in the u.s., it is pretty

clear that the u.s. is different from most other industrialized nations in the sense that we have a pretty fast growing population largely due to immigrants. it that comes into play not only in the first generation but in subsequent generations. immigrants who come here are generally younger. when you look at the future, and you look at where our labor supply is coming from, it is going to be coming from immigrants and their descendants. i would argue that it is important to think about this change as a positive one, to invest in this group, and think about where we are going, both domestically and also as an economic force. host: what is the impact of this report economically? guest: we did not look any specific impacts. with a high percentage of

immigrants who are here with college degrees, we may be under utilizing this group or they may be unable to get jobs. they would unqualified for somewhere else. there are a lot of reasons for that. some of them have language erbarriers. we have a lot of potential here, both in high skilled and low-skilled. when we look at the children of immigrants as well. host: chris, an independent caller. good morning. caller: -- host: you have to turn the television down. go ahead. caller: my comment is quite brief. we have an immigration policy that allows and it is utilized for 800,000 illegal immigrants

to come into this country every year. my question goes back to the conversation earlier when they were talking about visas. if we have 800,000 legals, why do we have to then turn around and give additional visas out to get highly skilled employees? guest: you know, i think it is hard to talk about these kinds of matches that occur over time. it is clear that we need an overhaul of our immigration system. we need to understand better what kind of flows are coming, what kind we should have especially as we come out of the recession. host: our topic this morning is one that president obama address

today. here is a headline from "usa today," -- host: we will go to new jersey. good morning. caller: my question has to do with the h1 visas. and the 1990's, we ask everyone to get high-tech training. thousands of our folks went to college and got trained in that industry.

now you see corporations outsourcing their i.t. departments, bringing on lower wage indians and they lose their jobs in america. i am concerned about that. what do we do to make sure that we, if we are giving out these visas, not displace working americans? guest: i think we are at a moment right now coming out of the recession we're in a lot of people are looking or just getting jobs who have been laid off or unemployed. it is a tough time to talk about immigration because there is a lot of anxiety out there. this can be very real in places and among certain groups of workers. our report kind of looks at everything taken together as a whole. host: what are your

recommendations? guest: we talk about knowing more about immigrants in the u.s., their skill levels, how we can match better our economic needs with our workforce, including immigrant labor. so, that is one of the big recommendations. i mentioned that what we have shown in this report is an incredible range of immigrant characteristics across metropolitan areas, and not every place is the same. so we would like to see more of a role from states and localities. that is important now when we see a lot of action by states and municipalities across the country either to control illegal immigration or to put out more welcoming or inclusive policies to bring immigration in. we also talk about things that

places, cities, and states, and municipalities can do to make things easier for immigrants on the ground, both low-skilled and high skilled. in terms of the low school population, language is key. we talk about very simple, not very costly ways to reach out to immigrants by implementing language access in terms of municipal business and those kinds of things. we also talk about high skilled with jobs inerrkers a better way. we recognize that not everyone is ready to move into jobs in this country because of language and other difficulties. host: john is an independent caller. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i think this is a reflection of

our high-school education, that we are bringing in people from subcontinent and the far east. my stepbrother just got his master's, and he is having a hard time finding a job. he is an accountant. but i love the fact that i live in the country where we accept people. as far as i know, most of us came from europe or whatever. i love the fact that we are at welcoming country. we need people from wherever to fill these high skilled jobs. i think is fine, and i welcome it. host: what do you think the difference is, that these high skilled immigrant workers are getting versus of low-skilled workers? caller: in japan, there are certain educational things in high school, that if you are at

a certain age -- i do not mean to be crude, but if you are not showing proficiency at a certain age, you are trained in the vocational skill. we do not do that in this country. everyone has standardized testing, and you are taught all of those things where you can hack it or not. they graduate everyone. you have to take geometry, algebra. certain people are meant to be plumbers and now go to college. -- and not go to college. they do not force people to do certain things. maybe you are meant to be a plumber or a janitor. if you are skilled in math or engineering, by the time you are 16, that is what you are going to do. guest: one of the interesting findings -- i do not know if you

showed that first graph -- host: this one? guest: no. it shows the skill level of u.s.-born people. you can see that high skilled are increasing. the blue line. low-skilled have been decreasing. that is a much smaller segment of the population, only about 7% of all adults do not have a high-school degree. we have been improving in that segment as well as increasing the number of people who have a college degree or more. so, in some ways, the lower skilled segment of our work force has been filled in by newcomers, immigrants coming to this country and working in jobs that are lower skilled. if you are an electrician or a

plumber, you have some training. i think we see a mix of both foreign and u.s.-born workers. mid skilled people who have graduated high school and may have some further training, either an associate degree, some years of college, or vocational training. but not necessarily a bachelor's degree. host: it does not matter what your degree is in? guest: no, we just kept it simple to show at the trends. the host: mark from pennsylvania, good morning. caller: could you explain nationalized and naturalized born citizens?

host: what does it mean to you? caller: i think she should explain that to people. people should look at our bylaws and our immigration laws. they have been stealing from us for i do not know how many years. host: we will leave it there. guest: we talk about naturalized u.s. citizens, the term in a report, that most people use of people who were born in another country who are here for a certain number of years, either five or three. they meet a number of requirements included language and civics test, security checks, and so forth. these are people that once they pass all of those thresholds, they apply for u.s. citizenship and take an oath to become a u.s. citizen.

those are naturalized u.s. citizens. i am not sure what the caller means by nationalized. caller: yes, i feel like -- i feel like we should take care of our own. i have friends who pay for their kids' college educations, but then immigrants come over here and get their educations for nothing. we need to bring back our manufacturing jobs and bring back the blue-collar workers. at thank you. guest: i do agree with the caller that we need to take care of u.s. workers in this country. this report does not suggest we should privilege immigrants over others. it is very important that people can make a living in this country. it is very important that young people coming out of school and find jobs. we are in a tough job facing a

recovery after a recession without so much job loss. in no way are we talking about moving one group above the other, but we do talk about how there is some competition especially at the lower end but also at the higher end for jobs. it is important that we moved those groups together. host: what percentage of them got their education in the united states? guest: we cannot look at that with our data, but we know that a pretty high percentage of people come with a degree, but a lot are here getting a degree and often stay. most of them state legally, but many do not. we do not have a lot of information because they are in the loose a population.

when we had the last major change on illegal immigration, the 1986 reform act, there was a study of immigrants who legalized. so this was a very different period of time. the composition was different. it was implemented over several years. when we look at the education levels of the group, 30% or here with at least 12 years of schooling. there is a mix, and it is associated with a lot of different things. host: what do you need to go to college here? guest: we have student visas. they can be undergraduate, graduate, and we grant them

visas it to be able to stay. most have one year of training after they get their degree, which gives them an opportunity and us an opportunity to look at them as well. host: sharon is from reno, nv. caller: my problem is the way we teach our kids. i have traveled to 26 countries. the people who are the achievers who are coming from the other countries, we are not keeping up with. i believe it from the beginning of school, we do not make the children earn their way up. it is like entitlements.

they feel as if they are entitled to have these jobs, but they have not put in the ground work to get them. as far as immigration, i think it is great when we have people who come here the way our laws are. but we have too many people in this country who are here illegally. in the countries i have travelled to, it would not be tolerated. i think we need to do something because our population that is here is truly a separate. i am visiting the state of nevada and then lived in hawaii. i have been there 16 years and i have seen such a change. we are hurting our economy. we have to start with our education and make our children feel good about competition and having good grades, not sliding

through with f's and d's. my parents made me get a's and b's. we need to start there. it is unfortunate that we and it is unfortunate that we are on a track of collapse for the people who are already here. guest: i think it is a really important point. we do not talk about our education system so much in the report because we are focused on the immigration system. that is something that has been part of the discussion nationally, locally, and i think it will continue to be a an important part of how we see ourselves moving in the future. regarding illegal immigration, i also think that the caller makes an important point, that we have made a change over the last 15 or 20 years -- we have seen a

change of the last 15 or 20 years. we have seen an increase and it is certainly not good for them or their status and not good for their children who are born into our system. these are things we need to look toward in the future. host: audrey singer talking about the brookings institute and a new report that they did about immigration. you can find the report on their website. good morning, caller. caller: what is your name again? guest: audrey. caller: i was a nursing school and a lot of the immigrants that came here had degrees already. one was an intent -- a mechanical engineer and i was amazed that she went to nursing school. i mean, you can make a good

buck, but you can do that as a mechanical engineer, too. my point is, we have 22 million americans that are part of jobs right now. i believe there should be a moratorium on immigration for a certain amount of time so we can at least assimilate with the people that are here and start a new social security card so that everybody who is supposed to be here is here. host: a moratorium on immigration, what does that mean for the report? guest: the caller made two important points. we have seen a virtual stop to immigration. worldwide, it has really slowed. we have seen some pretty radical changes.

there is a kind of natural slowdown. we are seeing now because there is a loss of opportunities in this country. in some ways, the process is happening right now. it is also a good moment to stop and think about immigration. and that gets to your second point, which is, what are we doing about enforcement and worksite verification? these are issues that need to be addressed by the federal government, by congress. and this is a difficult conversation for congress to have these days. but we have a ton -- been attempting to make changes in the past couple of years and hopefully, we will see something. host: the caller kind of alluded to this, but what do you find about high scale -- highly skilled immigrants and what they

are paid verses their training? guest: we looked at something called over qualification. we looked at whether they were in jobs that are commensurate with their skill levels. we found that almost 50% of foreign-born high skilled people in this country were not working in jobs that they were qualified for. host: there were overqualified? guest: they were overqualified for their jobs. about one-third of u.s.-born people in this country are overqualified for their jobs. like the caller said, they may have gotten their degree outside the u.s. it may not be the type of a degree that is certifiable in this country and they may not be able to get a professional status that they need in their chosen field outside of the u.s.. host: how many of these workers stay in the u.s.? guest: the temporary workers or

the permanent? there is always somewhat of a flux. of the biggest group that we know about the -- that we know about, the h1b workers, many of them are able tuesday and many of them have to leave to other countries. -- are able to stay and many of them have to leave to other countries. we do not have a good system for tracking them. host: glenn that is a democrat in independence, missouri. caller: i disagree with this woman all the way. someday, we are going to look like china, where they are going to say you can only have one baby. the population has exploded because of the immigrants. host: let's take that point. is that a true statement?

guest: we did get results from the 2010 census recently, which show the growth of the population. we grew by a few percentage points. we are a large country, over 300 million now. when you look at compensation, for example, of that growth, just a small percentage of the growth was due to an increase in the white population. we have 2.2 million more between 2000 and 2010. the 15 million more -- we have about 5 million more in the african-american population. the statistics show that the increase in relation is coming from immigrants and their children. when we look at staying competitive in the global market, the growth of the u.s.

economy and who will be working in the u.s., it is clear that without immigration, our labor supply will dwindle. host: let's go to phoenix, ariz., our last phone call for audrey singer. go ahead. caller: i was just going to say that what i would encourage is the u.s. to invest in mexico to keep us from -- the illegals from coming into the country. the big problem is that most of them are leaving their land because of economics. host: audrey singer? guest: this is a good point. a lot of people would agree with you. the other thing i would add is mexico's population demographically has been changing. much higher fertility rates have been coming down over the past couple of decades. the labor supply in mexico is actually shrinking because of

lower fertility rates, and also because of migration. we may see things coming up very soon, and i think demographers in mexico have been saying this for a number of years, that mexico will have to keep some of its workers in order to grow and prosper. host: audrey singer, thanks very much for talking to our viewers. for more information, go to brookings.edu. coming up, we will turn our attention to enforcing the nation's labor laws. >> economic numbers in this hour show retail sales down for the first time in nearly a year. consumers spent less on cars last month. the commerce department says retail sales dropped 0.2% last month, the first decline after 10 straight increases. as for will sell prices, they rose at the slowest pace in 10 months last month as food costs

fell and gas prices rose for the smallest -- by the smallest amount in eight months. there could be some relief from rising prices soon. president obama, in an interview with nbc, commented on the economy, telling dan curry that -- telling ann qari that the emotion over economic hardship is in his words, "9 cents." -- nonsense. president obama travels to pr today. the first presidential visit since president kennedy's visit in 1961. and an update on representative winner. yesterday, the house of representatives approved a two- week leave of absence. democratic leaders meet today behind closed doors for the first time since the scandal broke. they could try to take away some committee assignments in hopes of persuading congressman wiener

to preserve -- to resign. >> connect with c-span on line with the latest schedule of dates twitter. continue conversations on facebook, political places, and beyond with four square. connect today with social media. >> the thing that is just unquenchable, this is reasonable action. it involves secure information and a lot of other things. what kind of people would do such things? >> 40 years ago this week, according york published the first installment of the pentagon papers -- the "new york times" published a first installment of the pentagon papers. search, watch, clip, and share, watch what you want when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: here is a headline in the

business section of the quarter new york -- charles craver is here to walk us through it. what is the national in the labor relations board? guest: it is the government agency that regulates the national labor relations act, which provides private sector workers with the right to be in the union, to engage in collective bargaining, and also the right not to engage in such activities. they can strike, they can negotiate. they can avoid that. what the national labor relations board does, it is the

administrative arm that enforces that statute. host: what do they decide? guest: they decide whether employers have forced employees, whether the union has failed to bargain in good faith, whether the employer has discriminated against employees in an effort to encourage, or in most cases, discourage members of been in labor union -- membership in a labor union. host: is an independent entity. who sits on the board? guest: there are five members. no more than three from the same political party. if they are appointed by the president -- they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. host: 51 regional field offices. why? because guest: they regularly -- guest: because they regularly practice from field offices. i practiced in sampras's go years ago.

i think we had one in oakland -- san francisco years ago. i think we have one in oakland. we investigative we think there has been unfair labor practice. if someone to have in the election, the majority of workers decide if they want a union representative and a local office. they conduct a secret ballot election. host: why are they called -- called a quasi-judicial body? guest: because they have an administrative law judge who hears the evidence, decides whether he or she thinks there has been a violation of the statute. that can be appealed to the full labor board here in washington d.c. and if they determine there has been an unfair labor practice, if they find a violation, they can petition the court of appeals, or the losing party can appeal to the united states court of appeals. they are truly an administrative

agency. they're almost acting as a judicial body when they are deciding labor practices. host: are they assigned to deal with the national labor board issues across the country? guest: yes, administrative law judges have the title of judge, but they are not judges in the sense of lifetime appointment as we do under the united states district judges and courts of appeal judges. they sit on the national labor relations board and they do nothing but here unfair labor practices cases, and in some cases, challenges as for agents. host: is the number for the national labor relations board for 2010. why is this a separate agency from the labor department? for guest: because the labor department enforces other laws -- guest: because the labor

department enforces other laws. it regulates health laws and regulates the employment relationship. the national labor relations hsu -- the national labor relations board only regulates a narrow field. it covers labor relations and other activities, such as strikes. so many federal laws to regulate labor law. host: this is a piece written by .im demint

guest: there is no question the union activity in the private sector has declined. 75% of the1950's, laborers were in labor organizations. by the end of 2010 it was down to 6.9%. the unions have been much less successful for various reasons. we have moved from an industrial economy to a professional economy. we have seen a number of jobs replaced with automation. and we have seen outsourcing all over the world with globalization. so many things affect the strength of the private-sector union as opposed to the government union. 36% of government workers are still in unions today. host: what is the relationship of the board and the equal employment opportunity commission? guest: the equal opportunity -- equal employment opportunity commission enforces civil rights laws.

the age discrimination act, which bans discrimination and give people 40 years and older, and the americans with disabilities act, which bans anyone with a mental or physical disability, and the civil rights act are all covered under this agency. host: why do we need two different independent agencies? we guest: do not actually need two different agencies. -- guest: we do not actually need two different agencies. in the end, they end up in the same court. if there is a discrimination case, you can go to a federal district court. if you do not get what you want from the national relations board, you can appeal. eeoc deals with individual rights involving discrimination. the national labor relations board deals with groups of rights. host: we will take phone calls in a minute.

i want to show you what the gop candidates did during the debate last night in new hampshire. a couple of them talked about the labor board. >> one of the things that the congress should do immediately is to defund the national labor relations board. they have fundamentally eliminated the right to work. that is an immediate threat from the obama administration to eliminate the right to work. i think is fundamentally the wrong direction. >> if the federal government continues to do the type of thing that this administration has planned to do through the back door through the national labor relations board, that changes are free market system. and the free market system is what made this country great and we have to keep it strong. host: let's talk about this boeing case. what is going to happen in seattle today? what will be decided? guest: they will decide to do both things.

one, the course of conduct of the boeing co. to punish employees that have struck a number of times in the past 30 years. also, are they going to move jobs from the seattle area to the south carolina area to punish workers for being in a union? to be fair, the labor board has not heard this case at all. if all that has happened is unfair practices charges have been filed. and the council issued a complaint saying, i think there may be grounds for a violation. it should go to the labor board for an ultimate review. if the general counsel refuses to issue a complaint, his decision would be final in this case. they have to decide whether boeing said anything that would indicate it was trying to threaten its workers in seattle not to engage in strike activity in future. if so, that would be an unfair labor practice and the sole

remedy would be, do not do it again. if on the other hand, they actually move jobs from seattle to south carolina for the purpose of discriminating against the workers for having a union, that could be an unfair labor practice where they would -- they could order the jobs back to seattle. that is not what most of the cases have been about because now, none of the jobs are being removed. they are simply creating new jobs in south carolina. my guess would be, how they made in the coercive threat that would threaten the workers not to strike in the future? host: let's take our phone call from a democrat in milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: does the governor have a right to discontinue collective bargaining? our teachers here in the state, they want to stop the collective bargaining, and for all of the public officials that currently

have unions. they are trying to pass a law that they may not have it. do you people have anything to do with that? guest: the national labor relations act does not cover public-sector workers at all. federal workers are regulated under the civil service act and state workers, if they have bargaining rights, or pursuant to state law. there is a constitutional right under the freedom of association, the first amendment, to join a union. but there is no constitutional right that says the government must negotiate with its workers. in these states is a political issue. what i think should be going on is they should be going to the bargaining table because they are arguing that the labor costs are being excessive -- becoming excessive. go to the bargaining table and bargain over wages. the vast majority of states have

allowed their workers to bargain and this has been considered a very basic right. in fact, the international labor organization has a convention saying that all civilized countries should allow their employees to engage in collective bargaining host: what is a right to work state? guest: that is a narrow exception under the national labor act. states cannot interfere with the national labor board authority. but the provision allows one exception, that is, the states can have a so-called right to work law, which says you cannot require someone to become a union member. it is also interpreted to say that you cannot require them to pay union dues. even if i have the benefit of the union and i have a collective bargaining contract, the union cannot require me to pay union dues. host: where are they in this country? guest: the last i knew is there were 22. the vast majority are in the

south and in the non populous states. if you look at states like new york, pennsylvania, ohio, california and illinois, the big states were most of the unions are, they do not have right to work laws. host: linda, you are up next. caller: from what i understand, boeing has expanded their jobs to washington. i do not understand why they do not want the people to work in south carolina. i come from a stage where you do not have to be unionized. whatever it is called. host: right to work. caller: yes, ma'am. and you are allowed to join a union if you want to. i think it is all political and it needs to stop. we need to put people back to work. guest: i do think this is political. i think the machinists union is trying to put pressure on the

boeing company. that is why they filed with the labor practice charge. the white house has nothing to do with this, congress has nothing to do with this. the labor board is simply required to decide, do we think there may be a violation? if we had a democratic leader board or a republican labor board, they would have to decide if there was a violation. in terms of opening a new plan, boeing has the right to look for cheaper labor. they have been given tax incentives by the state of south carolina and they have every right to open a plant where they wish to. if they cannot do something that would force their own employees in seattle -- and i have heard conflicting reports both ways. if they said something that they're going to punish seattle workers for engaging in strikes in the past 30 years, that would be an unfair labor practice. the only remedy there would be that the company would be told not to do it again in the future. host: our guest is here from

george washington university to give us a one-on-one on enforcing the nation's labor laws. the headline in the paper is the boeing case with the national labor relations board. here is from the "wall street journal" from friday. is there a legitimate concern? guest: yes, and we have to

understand is that the labor board itself has made a decision -- everyone is acting as if the labor board itself has made a decision in the boeing case. it has simply been decided there is sufficient evidence to raise the issue. he is, in effect, the prosecutor. it is sort of like i claim someone has committed a crime. i go to the prosecutor. they may decide to issue a charge. then it goes to trial. the labor board itself has heard nothing pertaining to the boeing case. this week, an administrative law judge will take evidence. that person will then decide whether he or she thinks there has been an unfair practice. that will then go to washington. more donebeen nothing than to say there is an impression of a violation here. congress will called the u.s. attorney in and ask, why

did you or not file a criminal charge? in my many years of teaching i worked for the labor board in between during graduate school. the labor board has been called before congress from time to time to discuss their more controversial decisions. they are used to doing it. host: willie decision be made today? guest: no, it may go on -- host: will a decision they made today? guest: no, it may go on for days. what exactly was done and what was said will be looked at and whether there was anything coercive done by the company. if so, they would issue a cease and desist order saying, don't do it again. the harder issue is very complicated.

is there any evidence that there will be loss of work in the seattle area to punish them for prior union activity? as of now, i have read that there is no loss of work. host: the hearing that congressman iceisah is holding n congress this -- in south carolina this reddick, will there be a decision? guest: it is irrelevant to the administrative law judge's decision. that has to be based on the hearing this week in seattle. host: greenwood, indiana. democratic caller, good morning. caller: [unintelligible] host: bloomington, delaware,

daniel, a republican. caller: my question is, i am not a union-redress because i am a republican -- i am not critical of the union because i am a republican. i was in the teamsters for 16 years. why is it so hard to get fired from that? it seemed like the employees could do anything they wanted. they have really port employees. and nobody could get fired. guest: you raise an interesting question. in the u.s. we have what is called employment at will. in the private sector, what that means is an employer can fire a worker any time for good cause, that cause, or no cause at all. some would also -- often say -- unions would say that is un- american because we are the only industrialized country in the world that can fire an employee for any reason. labor unions put in their bargaining contracts that you

have to have just cause. and they have a grievance arbitration that goes before an arbitrator if they do not reach a mutual agreement. i happen to be a labor arbitrator and many cases involve discipline. in america, an employer has to prove there was actual cause. in half the cases the discipline is reduced or even eliminated. i have cases where the discipline was clearly not warranted and i have had other cases where the employee should have been fired five years earlier. i have taught at industrial school how to do arbitrations and one of the biggest complaint i get from union representatives is, why are we protecting the people who should have been fired years ago? that is a very fair question. i think there are times when the unit should take -- say to the worker, there was just cause. why don't they say that?

because they are afraid they would be sued. it is easier to take the case to arbitration. if they lose, that is the end of the matter. host: in 2011, the national labor relations board's budget was kupka. -- was cut. the congressional research service, crs, took a look at the national labor relations board and these cuts and what it means. they've broken down, where the money was spent. ed, "here is thein breakdown. -- here is the breakdown.

john, an independent in hudson, florida. go ahead. caller: it seems that the union have -- the unions, they have all of this backing and things like that. but it seems like non-union people and should take the unions, or even gm to court. we spent billions to bail them out, but then we send jobs to mexico. can't we take a collective action? do we have to be in a union to bring an action against the company? there are a lot of people who are not union people who need representation. guest: i do not think the bailout was simply to protect union workers because the financial institutions were also bailed out and they have very few workers represented by unions.

they allow them to keep all of their huge bonus contracts and the billions of dollars paid out in bonuses, but the auto required, they've general motors to go through bankruptcy reorganization where they have reduced their costs by 20% to 25%. they did not do any of that with the financial institutions. they should have told them to go through bankruptcy organization -- reorganization and you're going to reduce these contracts that cause you to go through the situation you are in now. all of these derivatives and the thieves who went through the mortgage situation where they lied about the value of the homes, etc. not one major partisan and has been indicted. host: in texas, sheila, democratic collar.

did i get that right? caller: yes, my name is sheila. i live in texas and is a right to work state. i hate that phrase because it is actually a screen. the workers actually have no rights. i am 50 years old and was heard on the job. it took me 10 years and $50,000 to fix myself. the company tried to fire me because they had taken my husband's life insurance after taking premiums from me and refusing to pay. i did get all of that stream out -- straightened out, but with my injuries, i ended up with $22,000 and it cost me $30,000. and they can fire you for any reason. i mean, if they do not like the way your eyes look today, you are gone. guest: that is true in general, but if you had a workers' compensation injury, you would be covered with your medical

expenses, your disability payments. and two, if they retaliated against you because you filed a worker's compensation claim, that would violate a statute either explicitly or implicitly. by your right to my years ago, there was a study of american workers -- but you are right, years ago, there was a study of american workers and many individuals said they wanted some collective voice at work because they had no bargaining power at all. about 85% said they would like some corrective voice. about half would like a traditional labor union and some would like some form of work aboard is a patient. -- some form of worker participation. i think we should have some worker participation in this country where they provide input and get to have some say what is

going on. ithey have it in other countrie. but managers do not like to consult workers. host: here is another article. what does this mean? guest: the football league is having very tough collective bargaining. the owners are trying to get more revenue generated from television, etc., for themselves. there is $9 billion at stake. some of that money is coming off the job and being kept by the owners. they are trying to get more than $1 billion off the table and then divide the rest 60/40. they filed the claim of

antitrust laws. when you are involved in collective bargaining, there is an exemption from the antitrust laws. they did not have a claim there. now they are arguing that the owners are not bargaining in good faith. this is all to put pressure on the owners. the fact of the matter is, what they really need to do, and they have been doing under the leadership of the federal mediation service, go to the bargaining table, decide how much of that $9 billion they will take off the table and give it to the owners. maybe $400 million, maybe $800 million, maybe $1 billion. whatever it is, reach an agreement and move forward. the players do not have a great opera tour de without the owners. the owners do not have anything without the -- the players do not have a great opportunity without the owners. the owners do not have anything without the players. they need to reach an agreement.

it is an agency where at the end of any collective bargaining you have to give notice of a new contract negotiation. they can send a mediator. they often do. despite the fact that we read about the football lockout and about strikes in other cases, every year, thousands of agreements are negotiated. the process works very effectively. what the mediation service does is it helps both parties when they are at an impasse. it looks for ways to come up with a mutually beneficial contract and they normally do quite successfully. host: can you quantify how many different agencies or departments deal with labor laws? i guest: am sure the answer is dozens because -- guest: i am sure the answer is dozens because we have many levels of worker compensation laws. we have occupational safety and health. we have at the federal level.

we have sought -- all sorts of provisions dealing with child labor. many of these agencies are actually subdivisions of the department of labour. but then we have the equal employment opportunity commission that a separate. the national labor relations board is separate. we have about 160 million people in the labor force in this country and they are regulated by many federal and state laws. host: here is a flow chart of the state department of labour. let's go to stephanie in greensboro, n.c.. caller: you see pictures from detroit about how awful the conditions are there for the people. then you see the pictures of the labor building, which is this glorious thing that stands out over the universe. doesn't it strike you that there

is something really wrong there? guest: you could say the same thing if you looked at the general motors building or the chrysler building or the ford motor co. building. the corporations have been very successful, and in fairness, the united auto workers union has been very successful because early on in the late 1940's, they organized almost all of the auto manufacturing workers. they have been very powerful and successful. what people have to understand, and i often say this to my labor law students, what unions are is they are lawyers for workers. most do not go out and hire a lawyer. they hire a union. the our businesses. they are not civil organizations for nonprofits. they are businesses for their business. the ig negotiates on behalf of many athletes -- the img

negotiates on behalf of many athletes all over the world. it was founded by mark mccormack many years ago. those are businesses. that is all a union is, business. host: carol, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask professor craver if the lawyers for unions represent the individual workers. they are hired by the unions, so within their loyalty to the union over the individual? be wouldn't their loyalty to the union over the individual? guest: they are hired by the union, no question. but i will tell you this, in many cases i have been arbitrating and talking to other arbitrators and most union lawyers do a very effective job on behalf of the grievance

because they know that as their job. it is the same thing we see in the insurance industry. so often you have an insurance policy and who are sued because you are in an auto accident or you have committed a negligent act. you are represented by a lawyer that is being paid by the insurance company, but under the rules for ethics for lawyers, my ethical duty is to my client and my client is the individual i am representing, not a party paying my sally reed. even though i am paid by the union or the insurance company, i have a duty to the person i'm representing. host: that is the griffin act? guest: yes, and that is their right -- and that is where you have the right to run for union office and other rights of individuals in the union, like elective office ever so many years. -- every so many years.

host: that's go to jim in minnesota, a democratic collar. caller: good morning to you. my comment is that on monday at the republican deal, they made it very clear that they want mrp. i feel that is an attack not just on union workers, but all american workers. the unions, we really do represent all workers, not just those who pay union dues and membership. guest: unions have actually had a very significant impact on regular workers in this country. when you go back to the end of the great depression and after world war ii, in large part because of the national license act, the industrial unions

autumn -- organize the auto industry and other industries. we created the their class and blue collar worker. -- the middle class and the blue-collar worker. since that time we have seen a change. in 1960, a compensation packages for the co's of major corporations were about 40 times what the average worker earned per year. it peaked at over 500 times and now it is somewhere in the 450* range. -- the 450 times range. we are a very individualistic culture. we judge a company not necessarily by how they do collectively, but by how well we have done. everybody wants to be a billionaire. throughout the 90's, in silicon valley we saw a high tech industry and everyone was getting rich because of the

industry. everybody wants to be a billionaire and they do not want to share in the bottom. if a company is going to be successful, it has to have capital and have a good investors and good workers. but the workers have been left behind. inflation has gone up over the last 30 years and ceo compensation has gone up dramatically. host: this is a post from the last night's gop debate in new hampshire. there are a few themes. one of them is an unfair attack on president obama. what is carjack legislation? guest: it is the employee free choice act.

normally, if you want to be certified for union come you have to win a secret ballot national labor relations board election. for many years, before the national labor relations act, and even after, between 1935 and 1947, the labor board itself could certify a union without having an election. you would sign a card saying i want this union to be my exclusive bargaining agent. in 1947, congress changed the law to require a secret ballot election to be certified. you could still get voluntary recognition, where the union goes to an employer and says, we represent a majority and the employer will bargain with you. what is controversial is a lot of times people will sign these cards because of social pressure or something else. i think instead of a 51% majority maybe they should

require a two-thirds majority because that would alleviate that. because we really believe in democracy, i say, how many of you allow your compensation packages be subject to a secret ballot of the shareholders, and right away they say we do not believe in that much democracy. host: good morning to the next caller. caller: two things. kudos to you and the other rows for being able to listen to the callers. some of them are really off base and order. anyhow, the unions and robots. it seems in the last four years robots have replaced workers. i wonder if that is due to the back -- in the last 40 years, robots have replaced workers. i wonder if that is due to the fact that the unions have caused so many problems for

employers. guest: as labor across the what it is cheaper to replace the individual with a machine. -- as labor costs go up, it is cheaper to replace the individual with a machine. i was teaching at the university of california davis were they invented the so-called davis to meadow, which is an extremely thick skins tomato that can be -- davis tomato, which is an extremely thick skin to a tomato that can be picked by a machine. that was a real dilemma because years ago, henry ford was walking through and out of plant with the head of the uaw. and henry ford said, walter, some day this will all be machines and their travel must be no workers. and walter said, and who will buy -- and there will almost be

no workers. and walter said, and who will buy your automobiles? in the last few years, there are fewer people buying cars. used cars are being bought more than new cars. and with the price of gas, people are not traveling as much. we do not have a blue-collar middle class. we no longer have a demand for products and goods that we used to have when we had a much greater of middle-class. host: mike in illinois. if caller: i believe in unions -- caller: i believe in unions. if you do not like it, your employer -- otherwise, if you do not like it, your employer who hires you and hire someone else. -- your employer fires you and hires someone else.

with the unions, you have vengeance, most of them have 41 k's, and health care -- you have pensions, most of them have 401 k's, and health care. guest: there are some good unions and the audience. i believe in checks and balances. i happen to be eastern european. my mother came from eastern europe. and i hated communism because you have no democracy, no checks and balances. the one of the happiest days in my life was when the wall came down and that was the end of the totalitarian regime. if one side has all the power, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as was said to years ago. the president offsets congress, congress offsets the president. the same thing is true with

unions. if unions have all the power, they will abuse it. that is why labor costs have gotten so high. in the private sector today, the employers have all the power and they are using it. i think we do need checks and balances. if unions were to disappear from ied we would see a tremendous abuse of individual workers, or we would -- eager we would see a tremendous abuse of individual workers, we would see a new form. the optimistic view is that many unions would leave the blue- collar pessimistic negotiating tactics behind. host: evelyn on the republican line in south carolina. what have you been hearing about

the boeing situation? caller: i think the unions have caused problems. that is a lot of the reason that american businesses have moved out. it is for the very reason that they have overtaken it. these unions get money, and the poor men and women today cannot even get the same -- and the poor men -- and women can auditing at the same salary as the men. that is wrong. -- women cannot even get the same salary as the man. that is wrong. if guest: what is interesting is, corporations, no matter where they are the world's -- where they are in the world, they want cheap labor. in some countries they use children.

even before the free triggermen once extended to mexico, mexico had a high -- even before the free-trade agreement was extended to mexico, mexico had high labor employment. china is starting to lose jobs to other countries with lower labor costs. if you have a union, the labor costs may be higher, but many law firms have almost no unions. they are hiring lawyers for $15 or $20 per hour to do discovery work. they do not want to be than the usual starter, no fringe benefits. -- they do not want to pay them the usual salary, no fringe benefits. or if they do try to offset

costs, they give even bigger bonuses to the people at the top. host: dean, go ahead. caller: i have a quick comment and a question. i want to say that the last caller from south carolina, i do wish she would have spoken more bluntly. she sounds like many people i have grown up around who have sort of given in and are afraid to stand up for themselves because of the fear of losing their jobs. they're willing to accept lower pay and continue to struggle. the american dream, i believe, as possible because of unions. my parents came here as legal immigrants in the 1950's. with no high school education they were still able to raise two kids and send them to college. the reason is because their factory was in a wage

competition with a union factory on the other side of town. they're fat-free was not union, but they had to compete. -- their factory was not union, but they had to compete. most young people are just like my parents 40 years ago. they are trying to raise kids. they cannot buy a house. they have enough trouble just feeding their kids and clothing them. >> a very good -- guest: a very good point. there was a book written about what unions do. one thing that is emphasized is that the unions have a significant impact on workers that are not in unions. the non-union employers look very carefully at the benefits and they try to provide enough to keep their workers satisfied so they will not unionized. even non-union workers generally

will be very much affected by the actions of the union because they will not have to worry about their employees unionizing. host: bob, hello. caller: years and years ago there was a lawsuit by beck verses cwa, and it said that basically in even a non-work truth -- non-right to work state, you did not have to pay union dues. however, at the end of the year you could apply for that portion of union dues that were not used for maintenance and negotiation and the union had to return it. last suit subsequently went to the supreme court. the supreme court ruled in favor of back. i belong to the cwa at that time. i dropped out of the union and apply for that portion and was

completely ignored. you never hear of becher vs. cwa anymore. -- beck vs. cwa anymore. can you tell me about it? guest: actually, you do. what the statute says is that hip only requires me to pay the membership fee. they should have made it clear that membership really does mean financial core membership. but i only have to pay the union dues. if i am an actual member, i cannot object to the way they spend my money. but if i may financial member, i can object to anything that is philosophical, political. if they use my money that is -- for anything that is political,

i can demand that my monthly dues be reduced. you should have had every right in the world to have the cwa to reduce your dues and they violated your rights by refusing to do so. in fact, today, the labor board requires the union every year to notify the people in the bargaining unit that they do not have to be union members. if they do not have to pay the financial cost and they can inject to the ways -- and they can object to the way the money is being spent. host: next caller, go ahead. caller: i want to comment that on the union side, the drawback is that we have no control over the with the money is spent, like was just mentioned. if the money is pro-abortion or something, and in