negotiations. he serves on the budget and appropriations committee. we will then talk to the new york times financial editor about the 2008 economic downturn. she is the co-author of a book. later, a look at yesterday's supreme court ruling in favor of wal-mart and a gender discrimination lawsuit. the supreme court reporter will be with us. ♪ host: good morning. this tuesday, the first day of summer, and a busy day and national politics. jon huntsman will make it official with his announcement of his campaign for president in new jersey this morning. the federal reserve is meeting to consider interest rates, plus the biden budget talks ramp up

their speed. the senate will debate the nomination of leon panetta to be defense secretary. we will talk about the decision the president will announce on his state of u.s. troops in afghanistan. we will preview that by asking you what you like the president to do with regard to troop levels in afghanistan. here are our phone numbers. you can also send us say tweet or e-mail us. a lot of ways to get involved this morning. we looked forward to your comments. before we get to that question about your message to the president about troop levels in

afghanistan, i'm going have stephen dimmest -- going to have steven it dennis it joined us from "roll call." if this is about the continuing negotiations about job creation led by the vice president. it seems as though the talks have ramped up as the august deadline gets closer. these are all behind closed doors. what can you tell us? guest: they are going to meet every day the rest of this week, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, with possibly friday being left open. they really want to have at least a framework for getting a deal by the end of this week, not the final thing that they would sign off on, but at least a path to sign off on. if they do not get there this

week, jon kyl, the leading senate republican negotiator, says that they may have to rehearse s -- we-assess -- rea ccess and go to plan b, which could be a short-term package for the debt ceiling that would get us into the fall and have more time for negotiations. host: even though some republicans were raising the idea that missing that debt ceiling, the threat of the fault being greater than it saturday, it sounds like it would be raised even temporarily while solutions are sought on a budget compromise. guest: republicans had thought that hitting the debt ceiling would not be catastrophic. none of the republican leaders have said that. all of the republican leaders of knowledge that you must raise the debt ceiling.

their problem is that none of their rank-and-file members want to vote for. that has been a problem all along. just because the leaders think you have to do it, if you look at the poll numbers, 80% of americans do not support raising the debt ceiling for you have to offer something else. they have been trying to cobble together some package of cuts that can get through both chambers. it is hard to do that. if you need democratic votes, you have to get them to support cutting things in programs that they have supported forever like medicare. the democrats are demanding some revenue in addition to those cuts. it is not clear whether republicans are going to be willing to go along at least with some revenue. there was some sense of hope last week that they might be moving in that direction by getting rid of some smaller tax

breaks like ethanol tax break. 73 senators voted to get rid of it last year. that would be $6 billion a year. if you could bring together five or 10 of those, maybe you could get a deal appeared but it sounds like the republicans are saying that tax reform should be a separate thing down the line. what the vice-president talked with reporters about last week with is that the horse trading has started. they have started negotiating some smaller deals, smaller spending cuts, but all of those are contingent on getting a larger deal. for democrats, that means revenue, and for republicans, it means taking on the entitlement programs like medicare and medicaid. they will not discuss social security because it is too

politically radioactive right now. when it comes down to, there are all of these items that are getting in play right now, what did they be federal pensions, private pensions, student loans -- they're going through every program to see if there is something that they can trend. that is not politically radioactive. this is a very hard thing to do. the last time there was a big bipartisan debt ceiling, it was 1997. the partisan divide has only widened since then. it is my clear that they will be able to get something done in the next few weeks. that is what people are starting to talk about kicking the can down the road a few more months. the minority leader raised the prospect in the senate sunday. host: in terms of the timeline,

early august is the deadline, but some of the chambers will be gone for break. guest: that is true, but this group has committed to meeting during the break. when the house is gone, eric cantor will still be there, chris van hollen will still be meeting with this group. even though one chamber might not be gone, is less like they're probably going to keep negotiating through those breaks. provided that they see a path forward, and if they do not, it is possible that this group says they are not getting to a global deal and they kick it upstairs. at that point, the president and the speaker of the house, john boehner, and harry reid, the senate majority leader, will have to cobble together some sort of a compromise. it could be headed that way if

there is no breakthrough this week. maybe they will agree to some things on medicare and medicaid that are politically palatable. one of the things that the democrats are talking about is cutting drug companies. there could be some things that they agree to. host: thanks for that update on the now-daily talks by the vice- president with members of congress. steven dennis as the front page story on "role called." you can see the headline is "all talk, no action on jobs." here is the question of the day -- your advice to the president as he is still making decisions about the troop level in afghanistan. we will turn to the "wall street journal" on that crown on the decision.

president barack obama will announce how fast -- military leaders have all avoided announcing their preferences

the u.s. is accomplishing its goals and cannot afford all less intensive campaign. our question for you, as the president ponders the afghan troop levels, what is your message to him? beginning with florida, this is rick, a republican. caller: i agree with you. there should be a significant number that comes home and we keep up footprint to keep the bases and training the afghan army. host: is your reasoning that the job is done? caller: i think it has gotten as good as it can get. from hill, it goes downhill. host: rate, an independent in manhattan, you are on the air. caller: i believe that the

president's decision will be his waterloo as far as 2012, whatever the number, because it it will be perceived as too light or too small, and on the heels of not closing guantanamo and promises he has made, it will disappoint his left-wing support. and for the right wing side, the conservative side, if he pulls out too big a number, does that leave our remaining troops more vulnerable. and after a decade of fighting in deaths, the lead then lose the country? i believe that he is damned if he does and damned if he does not. host: waterloo was also used by columnist for "usa today." do not let wars become your waterloo.

it is not his war but it may be his waterloo. he has dramatically increase the number of u.s. troops in afghanistan, spent billions of dollars rebuilding the country. if you think that is left-wing heresy, consider this. the los angeles mayor backed a call from a group of mayors -- the president should avoid a political trap much like waterloo. what is your message to the president about the proper level of troops in afghanistan? in that, a democrat from kansas, is up next.

caller: one of the things i have been looking out for days is that number one, they are not going to let this president carry out his plan. if they had let him do that, all this hear what have come to a head before it would of been more easy to do. that is number one. then senators and house representatives want to cut everything, but they never mention about cutting their salary, now one time. they are not cutting their salaries and not one time. they should take some of their salary to help with that debt and deficit they keep talking about. host: of the " washington times," a decision on numbers coming home. the administration official confirmed the presence will make the announcement prior to his

visit thursday to fort drum. next is a call from indianapolis, a republican. caller: i think president obama said probably listened to the commanders. that is the best will to deal with that problem. host: what the folks on the ground dictate the direction? caller: but the field commanders to dictate the direction. that is what they are paid for. that is what we have them on service or. i am a veteran myself. i trusted my commanders and i feel like the american people can trust the commanders that we

have in place right now. host: arguing that the field commanders should help make the decision on triples. we are asking for your message about afghan troop levels. atlanta is up next, allen is an independent. caller: first, an editorial comment. after watching c-span for 15 years, and especially "washington journal," where people get the event, that is what i think it is. we all been to give our opinions. but it does not make any difference whatsoever. host: so why are you participating if it does not make any difference? caller: it is entertaining but

it accomplishes nothing. people are disinterested and they are your best friend unto you elect them and they then do not know who you are. host: it is more a statement on the politicians on this country than on the public voicing their opinion? caller: we all know what the public thinks of politicians. the politicians do not care as long as they get their $15,000 a month in in, and laugh all the way to the bank. that being said, we need to pull out all of the soldiers. it is not doing anything good. it is rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. everybody knows it. it is a case of musical chairs. no one wants to get stuck in that chair when the music stops. that is the problem, and obama consistently changes his version of the truth.

it does not do any good. we spent huge amounts of money thinking that we can kill people into submission and peace, and it does not work. the taliban have nowhere to go. they live there, they are an indigenous to the area. they cannot come back to america or somewhere else. they cannot do anything but by the us and eventually we will leave. it will be like vietnam all over again. eventually we will leave with peace in honor, we just have to declare victory, which we did when we summarily executed osama bin laden. and that is said. we just come back and life goes on and we look into our next war with syria. host: thank you for your call on twitter --

back to the "los angeles times." here is a bit more, the main military effort in afghanistan is expected to shift over the next year from helmont province in the south where u.s. forces have achieved fragile security gains, to the east, where the taliban insurgency remains potent. this strategy is unlikely to satisfy some critics.

new york is next. this is mark, a democrat there. caller: i have been listening to all of the comments concerning this war and troop withdrawals in afghanistan. i think we have already accomplished what we went there for, and that was to get bin laden. what are we still doing there? those people were born to fight and died. you cannot change it. that is their way of life. host: are you calling for gradual withdrawal or do you want them all out soon? caller: i like all of the troops out. it is not going to stop. it will never stop. that is the people's way of life. leave them alone. they have had a tin years to build an afghan army.

they were supposed to take over now. 10 years, that is enough. host: "usa today" has a story from the field. holding out the taliban in remote outposts, the heavy toll. since deploying to the small base in the mountains, but to present signed of the u.s. troops have been injured. u.s. and afghan forces are fighting an economy of force mission, holding the line will build in the cap ability of afghan security forces. also, obama finalizing drawdown plans. that is why we are talking to you this morning. obama is still working through

the details on how many troops will start leaving afghanistan in july. our question to you -- what is your message to the president about that decision? the next phone call comes from chicago, brenda, an independent there. caller: there should be a drawdown in consultation with the military pfizer's, consistent with counseling, to get our men and women out what good is it doing to keep changing up and callusing innocent young people? it just has to stop. this is a civil war and we cannot be the warden for all the world. it is to the offensive.

we are here with our pants down. that is my comment. host: we talk to steven dennis and heard that democrats are holding fast to major entitlement programs. the "washington post," -- your message to the president on afghanistan troop levels. next is a democrat from connecticut. caller: i held my voice is not get too shaky or high pitched. it is such an emotional issue.

i think we are fighting that war on terror and i've heard so many people talk about the reason that we went into the worst. we know that russia was there and there were crippled, and interestingly enough, i can remember who, said what did bin laden really want when he went into the towers? that was for america to give up freedom and engage our military in muslim countries and why was out financially, and somehow, that is all being accomplished. the last thing i would say is that i really wish that we somehow could get in a dialogue about what is going on with corporations controlling all of our political forces, so that we think we had his voice, but we do not. they really need all this money

all of them to get reelected. we need to somehow get an open dialogue in this country which does not happen. it is just to worry. thank you for listing. host: we're going to move to the editorial and opinion pages about the war in afghanistan to let me start with the "los angeles times." tom toles cartoon. i will describe this for our radio listeners. there are two pictures of soldiers. the u.s. is holding of big words saying afghanistan, and is saying, want to hold this now that go home? our allies has spent the last decade fighting alongside as an afghanistan and iraq and will wonder if america's resolve will

always melt so quickly when she is now giving the orders. that is regarding the situation in libya. also john mccain saying over the weekend about new isolationism. they are widely overestimating their moral authority. back to your phone calls. michigan, frank, a republican. caller: [unintelligible] those were the last wars that we ever won. we have not won wars because we do not go to unconditional

surrender. we have politicians telling us that we have to talk to the taliban. your enemy is your enemy. it is time to destroy your enemy. you can build them back up again, but you're going to destroy them for nothing. we're not going to win any more wars. host: frank referred to the marshall plan after world war two. david brooks's talks about that this morning looking at the aid money going to afghanistan.

next, va., dave, a democrat. caller: i recommend an immediate and full withdrawal from the middle of afghanistan. but langley do the job. the republicans may star wars, barack obama, he finishes them. host: to you have some special conditions there? caller: i have some friends in langley and they are getting the job done. host: wilson, an independent, good morning to you. caller: i feel like they should take the emotion out of this and start to use some scientific sense here. one guy called then, we haven't

won a war since world war ii? these people do not have anything to lose, for one thing. we have to destroy them but what will we would destroy? a bunch of rocks? i do not even understand this. they really cannot do anything to us. it is the emotion getting us into all this trouble, but fear that they built up after 9/11, its propagating this to go on and on for ever. they're really do not have any weapons. one guy that pound and a spider hall, the other in iraq up house, and we're spending billions of dollars following these fools around. they come back and tell us we are broke but we have $2 billion a week to send over there. people have to find out why the real reason we are in there. it definitely is not to protect us from anything.

host: on twitter, another voice for total withdrawal. next telephone call is from kansas. this is a republican by the name of phil. caller: i do not know what leaders would think of us. at our level, there is little that we know about strategy and tactics. host: but do you believe that public opinion, especially on this body right over my soldier here, as a strong force in deciding policy? caller: sometimes i do and sometimes i do not.

i think the public is so divided, the input that the politicians get is not productive. it is not as productive as it could be. we do not know enough about strategy and geopolitics and all the of the things. but what is hard for me, and 7.5 years in the military. i am rethinking all these things. i read one book, and it was noted that we have actually -- everything seems so disconnected from what is actually happening. the military is just a small cadre of people, generally coming from middle-class or lower-middle class, and the rest of us do not have that much of a stake in an. what happens is that they do not mean that much for us, whereas

in vietnam all american families were involved in so there was much more at stake. number two, i keep wondering if we get involved in wars, as much as he seemed like a bloody man, william sherman had a right. if you're going to invade come at the end to it to the maximum. if not, then just stay away. what he said in the south river race to this day. -- reverberates to this day. if politicians cannot find a solution, this would be a reminder. i think that we've missed that. everything is disconnected. it seems that we are perpetually of war. it just mystifies me. we go into libya, lemon, and now

they're talking about military action against cyber terrorists, whoever they might be. you have this one class of people they engage in it, and the rest of us go on with our lives. host: in a column in the "washington times, calls " the isolationist charges raised by senator mccain. gop is not isolationist. here is a bit of what mr. blankley rights. almost 2.5 years ago, i was fun of the first to assess how was one of the first to conclude that the afghanistan conflict had served its initial purpose.

the question is coming your message to the president as he announces the mark that troop levels in afghanistan? new york business, gary, an independent. caller: he needs to bring all

the troops back at the same time. like any other war, prices go up because you have to pay for all the products going overseas. i think that would help to get the war out of the way. host: were you in the military yourself? caller: a 15-year veteran. i was a combat engineer down in texas. i was occupying the united states. host: thank you for your call. up the west coast, california, john, a democrat. caller: i am a vietnam veteran. you know, our voices will not

mean a darn thing until we get out and hit the streets and tell the people of washington that we're not going to take this anymore. they want to have perpetual war. that is what gives people rank, the gross national product over and afghanistan, it was like $2 billion before we get there. buying million dollar houses over there. as all of our money. until we get all of our butts and get down into the street and say, we're not going to take this no more, and also that the bankers will have to pay for all

of this stuff that they have done to us, nothing is going to change. and that is just the way it is. host: bill beattie on twitter. here is an opinion piece -- it written by the american head on the council of foreign relations. he references, eikenberry, who publicly slammed president karzai last weekend. it cannot stand a good to his attacks on an america that is bleeding from afghanistan's freedom. he had a few undiplomatic words

for the afghanistan leader he has long despised in private. he will only succeed in convincing more and more americans to say enough. indeed, if americans were to hear karzai is attitude as often as their exposure to n anthony weiner's private parts, we would be out of afghanistan next week. here is a taste of the rhetoric in afghanistan. america's best friend continues to say thank you to the united states in his special way. last sunday he charged that coalition forces were here for their own purposes, for their own goals, and they are using our sold for that. imagine that. we're fighting for our own interests. a few weeks ago he uttered this. if nato does not start -- stop airstrikes, their presence in

afghanistan will be considered an occupying force. history has shown how afghans deal with its occupiers. talking about that president's message for troop withdrawals, next is los angeles, a republican. caller: a basic comment. why can the president and the leaders there not get together and draw up a plan for what they want to accomplish question -- accomplish? . host: thank you. the washington times gets front- page coverage to jon huntsman's

announcement. we will cover that right after this program. he is doing that from where or reagan announced his presidential bid. a new ap story. john mccain brushing aside questions about running in 2012. the arizona republic and smiled and told the interviewer, there is a long history of masochism and my family, but not so severe as to make him want to run again. mitch is an independent. caller: i definitely want to see all the troops being pulled out. i definitely am scared. i do not think it is going happen. i believe that the military- industrial complex is taking over. the american people do not set

the agenda at all. it seems like we do not have a voice. everybody wants them out now, and i do not see it happening. the council of foreign relations, the bill the bird group, look through the facade. it is more than the president's setting the agenda. i think the american people should wake up to this and start talking to our neighbors and we are all agreeing on the same thing right now. it will be a mystery to see if it will happen. we need to pull all troops back from all wars, and there is a lot of money to be made in it. but the banking is all coming to an end.

if we could take a step back right now and rely on the voice of the american people. host: that is from new hampshire. "detroit free press", and let me tell you more about this from the "wall street journal." the worst performing public schools in detroit will be removed from the state's school system and be used by a new authority. also, we mentioned that the commerce nominee is on capitol hill today. the front page of the "los angeles times" business section. he is being smeared in partisan wrangling.

he has been in a pawn in the hyper partisan political match that has left dozens of nominees on hold. nearly all senate republicans have vowed to block the confirmation unless it advances 3 pending trade deals. on top of those problems, bryson draws objections from some who object to his a barrel mental views. we will cover that hearing today with our cameras. a couple of minutes left on the president's message. chicago, good morning to you. caller: what i have to say, it might take a little bit, but i will try to say it as best i can. host: we are almost out of time.

caller: the president made promises about afghanistan. this is not really about afghanistan. pakistan.ore about they are supposed to be an ally, but they are weak ally. the concern that the president has is that not afghanistan to get its act together, but pakistan for our national security interest. to many of us as americans have the inability to reason out some of these things. people are saying they do not trust pakistan, their reliability of having nuclear weapons, and this is part of the dilemma he is dealing with. he may not do it as quickly as everyone would like. host: last will be of boys from

syracuse, new york. caller: i had a couple of questions. i am a veteran. i feel like with most, it does not much matter. this is a sham as far as i'm concerned. people should read "war is alive." the news media including you refuse to talk about things that matter to our country. we need to do more contact with our congress people. we need to be more united, especially the older people. this whole thing as a sellout for the rich and the super rich. the pranksters, they all get away with murder -- banksters, they'll get our way with murder. i do not hold anything against the rich in the super rich, but

200 people, they need be taxed more but that is ignored. you have to ride out a questionnaire in order to be heard, and of veteran -- we are over our time this morning. we will watch the announcement tomorrow but the decision for troops in afghanistan and future troop deployments there. i wanted to put something else on the record keeping older man is back on the air as of last night. -- something else on the record. keith olbermann is back on the air as of last night. it is as if he never left.

"the mouth that roared" begins another countdown. we will be back with senator ron johnson of wisconsin. >> what was only echoes of the murky water which hit the presumed good guys keep reporting bombs on its allies? karl rove and liz jenny this afternoon addressing the republicans to attack military action in libya, not because he had done too much but on the theory that he has not done enough. ♪

>> mr. president, i thank you very much. i feel deeply honored to be nominated to become the 20 at director of the central intelligence agency. >> learn more about general david petreaus in his appearances on line at the c- span video library. with more the 115,000 people and every c-span program since 1987, all searchable in free, it is washington your way. >> this weekend, we look at the history and literary life of savannah, ga., with events on c- span2, including the childhood home of flannery o'connor, a conversation with the sister of jim williams, and also a tour of urban slavery sides.

on american history tv on c- span3, travel to the founding days of said and as we visit the sites of plantations and explore and that element set than not. content vehicles in savannah, georgia. >> i have the honor of representing florida. i am here in the senate. today i speak for the first time on this floor on their behalf. >> all 13 freshmen senators have given their first speech on the senate floor. see them in congressional chronicle, a comprehensive research with information on your elected officials. video of every house and senate session. keep up-to-date had seized -- c- span.org/congress. >> "washington journal" continues. host: let me introduce ron johnson, a member of the

appropriations and budget committees in the united states senate, which puts him at the fulcrum of debate on spending in this country. it is his first visit to "washington journal." starting with the reporter that it is an update on the budget talks now moving into high gear, how confident are you in finding a deal that will come out of this? guest: you always hope, but i'm not overly confident. i have not seen a serious sense of purpose out of this administration in solving the problems. the budget that the president submitted two months ago said that it would be the solution to our problems. it would that $13 trillion four nations' debt over the next 10 years. when it was put to a vote in the

senate, it lost 0-97. that is a stunning repudiation of the president's leadership on the issue. i am been in business for 31 years. we have serious problems, you roll up your shirt sleeves and work on it hard. i have not seen the president do this. a lot of people are noticing this president does not want to lead. which is puzzling. that is the primary job description of the president of the united states, leading on issues. instead, he spends -- sends vice president biden. they are taking into high gear now, but this should have been taking up a great deal of his time and attention of the last six months, quite honestly. are we going to try to rush to some deal behind closed doors to

the point where treasury secretary geithner says we have reached the final limit? it does not give me a lot of confidence. host: one of your colleagues is that the senate has not stepped up to the plate. the gang of six negotiations fell apart. you think united states senate could take more of a leadership role, or must come from the white house? guest: there is only one american that can actually sign a bill, and that is the president of united states. it would be helpful if we have leadership out of the democratic-controlled senate as well. there's not a lot that we can do when we are in the minority. harry reid controls what comes up in the senate. pretty well controls when debate gets cut off, what amendments to allow us to be offered, and the

fact of the matter is, the democratically-controlled senate has not passed a budget now and over two years. the count is up to 71 -- is over 700 days. i have been here for six months. i have watched washington 31 years from afar. i washed to become increasingly broken. nothing i have seen here in the last six months convinces me otherwise pared our political process, our budget process, it is all broken. but on the republicans signed come up we realize how urgent the situation is. would you like paul ryan's planner not, at least it is serious. we are stepping up to the plate. we want to solve the problems. but we need a willing partner on the other side, and i have not seen that out of the democrats in the senate or out of this president. host: we will open up for your comments for ron johnson.

his background is 31 years of business in wisconsin. he brings that to bear in the united states senate. we welcome your calls coming year tweets, and your e-mails. the majority leader is suggesting that there may be a solution, temporary, on the debt ceiling. it is only temporary, leading more time for the negotiations. would you support that? guest: i do not want to deal with hypothetical. it is sad that we are sitting here one month and half before the treasury secretary says that this is the drop dead date, and now the administration is stepping up to the plate and holding more frequent talks. that might be necessary. i assume we do not want to vote for any increase until we solve the problem.

from my standpoint, if you have to establish a discipline. that is why i sponsored the cap act which puts us on a glide path toward balancing the budget. i would support a constitutional amendment, my preference that limits spending, but until we put those very hard controls on the political process here in washington, i'd do not see anyone stepping up to the plate on the other side to actually solve the problem. there is not the political will prove there is a lot of demagoguery. people like paul ryan but for a plan. chuck schumer called extreme. that does not solve the problem. we're producing commercials were you have a paul ryan-look-alike throwing granny off the cliff. that does not solve the problem. i am willing to work with anybody, anybody, who will seriously work with us in good

faith. host: since calling for negotiations, to have anything that is off the table for you? would you accept tax increases? would you want to look at military spending? guest: everything has to be on the table in terms of spending. my problem with tax increases, i do not think that it works. we have a very weak economy. the last thing we want to do is increase taxes. we need increased revenue, but we need to increase revenue the old fashion way, by growing our economy. whatever solution we come up with, it needs to be a pro- growth agenda. i am all for a complete overhaul of our tax system, a complete tax reform. our task code is 70,000 pages. the cost billions of dollars just to comply with the tax code. put that in context.

we will get up to $2.2 trillion in revenue. that is ridiculous. it creates some many uneconomic decisions on the part of businesses and consumers. we need tax reform. one piece of the good news, people on both sides of the aisle recognize that. our corporate tax structure is not competitive. that is not good. it is not whether we have a choice to compete in the global economy, we have to compete. we have to recognize that. we need to benchmark guard tax break, our tax regimen, our tax regulatory environment. we have to balance that against the rest of the world so that we are an attractive place for global capital to come and invest. host: i'm going to ask you to explain why this is important to you. guest: three weeks ago, i said a

letter signed by 22 of my republican senate colleagues. i called on the president to be engaged and develop the real solutions to problems. but barring that, i was very concerned that treasury secretary geithner was trying to scare the markets and the american people. his quote was that if they -- their fallback plan was to get an increase in the debt ceiling. and the fall back to that was to get an increase to the debt ceiling. i am new here. i have seen have broken this places from a far. now that i'm here, this place is broken. not passing a budget in the senate in two years, there is good evidence of that. i do not think that this is fenestration should assume they're going to get an increase in the debt ceiling. and it does not have to be a crisis if we do not get an

increase in the debt ceiling if we plan for it. that is what families to bear that is what businesses do every day. businesses frequently pay situation where they may lose a big customer and they have to cut back on expenditures. my chart here, one thing that i've noticed is that people talk about cuts off the baseline and percentage increases. no one actually looks at the real numbers. i would put together a chart to which other real numbers. a contingency budget, but also laying out to the american people what happens. what you see is 10 years ago, under bill clinton, heart total federal expenditures were $1.8 trillion. in 10 years, we have double that. the wry and plan calls for a reduction in spending down to $3.5 trillion. if we do not increase the debt ceiling, and the administration

says that we would be defaulting on the debt, but i do not see how they will be possible according to the president's own budget. next year we would still receive $2.6 trillion in revenue. $2.6 trillion is more than we spent just 10 years ago under bill clinton. paid interest, it would pay for 100% of social security and still need $1.6 trillion for essential defense, security and health and safety spending. again, keep it in context. $1 at any time 6 trillion is only a little less than we spent two years ago. so i think it's irresponsible for the administration to be scaring the markets and irresponsible for the administration not to have a

plan b if case they don't get that increase in the debt ceiling. host: considering the state of the economy, critics to enact a cut of this magnitude suggest it would further de press the economy and what's your response to that? about the timing? guest: i think what's suppressing the economy right now is the high level of uncertainty. what's causing the uncertainty? we're not stupid. the federal government in the last four years has incurred another $4 trillion worth of debt. when the government incurs that level of debt, somebody's going to have to pay for that and we have a real sinking feeling that we know who that somebody is. and the other thing hanging over businesses' heads is the administration have gone full speed ahead on proposing new

regulations. what's interesting about that is they are not enacting them. they are not actually implementing the regulations, because they realize how harmful they would be to the economy, but businesses are fully aware of these things, and they are worried. it starts with the health care law, but it goes on with all types of absurd regulations we hear every day from those coming into our office. the regulatory burden is a huge chunk of what's holding back this economy. host: our next question is from a viewer wondering whether or not the chart shows a six-times growth in defense and security from $33 billion to $1.6 trillion over the years? guest: again, that's why i said everything's got to be on the table. $1.6 then 1.3 and now more that

we don't have. we have to look at every item on the table. that includes entitle ments and revalue where we're spending money and we do have to take a look at our processturing around the world i think america is an enormous force for good in the world, but having said that, we have to take a look at what's happened over the last 10 years. what have we accomplished? how has it improved our standing in the world? and is there a better way of approaching these things? a more cost effective way. >> "the washington post" is not sure about it. this is the focus of our talk with the senator. let's take your telephone calls begining with peoria. james who is a democrat there.

you're on. caller: thank you. good morning. i noticed that -- let's be real. first of all, you blame this president for everything, and that's just not true. you got to remember when this problem took office, he didn't have any money. all he had, because you republicans spent it all. so naturally, if he's spending money he didn't vaccine of course he is. he didn't have nothing to start with. secondly, the taxes and regulations are not scaring business. business has three things that they do dearly love. low wages, high profits and practically no taxes but you republicans seem to think you can cut everything, especially for the senior citizens, like myself, and poor people and get away with it. you're not helping the country. if you were going to help the country, you would work with democrats. there's no bipartisanship.

when one side decide they know everything and the other side is an idiot and they don't know anything. guest: well, thank you, james for your question. first of all, i'm not blaming the president for everything. the president came into office with some tough circumstances. no doubt about it. but the problem is he made it worse. i think he made it far worse bypassing the health care law which by the way is not deficit neutral. it's going to explode our deficit. i -- in "the washington post" talking about the health care law instead of costing $93 billion a year, the health care law once it's fully implemented could cost almost $1 trillion a year and really explode our deficit. >> and -- host: and the reason was the money they could pay and you think businesses will take that opt out? guest: yes. the decision business owners will be facing in the future is

should i spend $15,000 which is what they estimate the family coverage will be or pay a $2,000 snine prior to the health care law most businesses would say i'm not going toly to throe my employees off insurance and expose home the those types of financial risks but now it's not a decision. if i don't spend $15,000 and pay a $2,000 penalty, i will make my employees eligible for a $10,000 subsidy. if you make $65,000, you'll get a $10,000 subzifment they estimated only 3.6 million people would lose their coverage from their employer. there's 180 million people that have employer coverage. there was a studdy. the mckenzie report and price waterhouse cooper showed the current state as they surveyed customers, half are planning on

dropping their coverage. they also estimate that the average subsidy will be -- de duct for the deductibility for health care premiums for businesses, that subsidy is going to be about $4500 per individual times 10 million people. if all 180 million people lose their coverage which is what i believe this health care law was specifically declined to do, that would cost us $900 billion a year, 10 times the original estimate and what's interesting about that, is in 1965 when they first passed medicare, they projected out 25 years and said medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. it cost nine times that. is that a coincidence? i don't think government is particularly good at estimating costs. host: next question for the

senator comes from georgia. tom, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning to y'all. i'd just like to say, senator johnson, i agree with your policy. and concerning the economy and it getting better, i think we all know the answer to that. as soon as 2012 has passed, i think the economy is going to improve. that's all i have to say this morning. host: thank you. guest: well, i'm not quite sure there's a question there fers, but until we actually, i believe until washington actually comes up with a credible plan to restrain spending, you know shows the mrn people and global investors that we're serious about this, i think there's going to continue to be that overhang of a high level of uncertainty.

and there's a lot of capital sitting on the zhrines. because they don't understand what the cost is going to be for employees or what the return on investment is going to be. so people are just kind of sitting back wondering what's going to happen here? then after that, the loose money policies that have been pursued by the fed for years. and you see how much money the fed is printing. businesses say at some point we're going to have inflation or extremely high tax rates. so that doesn't spur businesses to invest. host: since you referenced the paul plan and medicare is one of the major tenets of one of the budget negotiations. nevada over medicare, new prescription needed. he writes the crux of the

republican problem is voters haven't been convinced of the need for radical surgery. a number essentially unchanged from the time it was sexual abused believe it needs major changes. only 28% believe it needs major changes. they will have to convince people that medicare is in trouble. have your leaders done enough to set the table for the debate for this? >> well, it's hard. people don't like to hear bad news. the fact of the matter is last year we spent billions on medicare and next year it will double to almost $1 trillion on medicare. if you look at the reference of the u.s. debt clock. it's a website everybody can go to. but if you take a look at that. the unfunded liability of medicare alone according to the u.s. debt clock is $79 trillion

the other piece of information on the debt clock is what are the entire assets? the list is about $75 trillion. that's a problem when you have in one program an unfunded liability, in other words, money needed today to pay for the promises made in the future that exceed the entire assets of the u.s., that's the definition of a real problem. so obviously i think the american people do need to understand what the real driver is in terms of our fiscal situation, and it is the entitlement programs, and until members of particularly the party entitlement, that would be the democrats. until they are willing to acknowledge the facts that we have a problem and sit down with the republicans and first of all admit we have a problem and work with us to solve it, the problems are only going to multiply. host: good morning. caller: good morning susan and senator.

i believe you have a really thoughtful analysis, here. it strikes me that the democrats are playing the role of department store santa and telling every little girl that comes up that she gets a free pony for christmas. and until you can convince the american people that susan mentioned, that there's a real problem, i think it's problematic to advance any reform of the entitlement programs. i guess i am one of the ninth there's currently the canesian economic analysis is the one that's kind of driving all this debt increase. and i think what's absent from the debate is the previous failure and instead free market reforms that do work. with respect to the -- pointing to the cato policy report that

points to the post world war ii economic boom caused by radical, a fundamental cut in the government spending. the government was facing about 10 million americans returning from the military. so most of the canesians predicted if the government cut military spending, they would usher in a new depression. instead, president trueman, a democrat, cut the spending from $84 billion to $30 billion. and by 1947 the government was running a surplus and an economic boom really materialized. so may i have your comment, please? >> well, first of all i hope canesian economics can find a way to rest. we have been estimating a $45 trillion experiment that hasn't worked. we've lost jobs since this

experiment began. i have been operating in the free market system for 31 years, and there's no doubt about the fact that it is the private sector that drives our economy. it's the private sector that produces long-term, self-sustaining jobs the other thing i have to say, too, in terms of the free market. i'm a huge believer in the free market, because i've operated in it. i understand the role competition plays. you would love having no competition, but because you have it, what does a free market guarantee? it works, when it works properly, the lowest possible cost and highest possible quality in customer service. that's what we want in our economy and in health care. that's the real problem with this health care law is rather than relying on the free market, it is pushing us into

total government control and certainly as i traveled around the state of wisconsin, i would ask people, how many people really think the government can take over 1/6 of our economy and do a good job of it? i asked that of thousands of people. only two raised their hand. i am not against government. we need government for defense, to protect the free market system and make sure we reign in monopolies. but when government gets too large and makes way too big a claim on our economy -- years ago, the government spent 2% of our total economy. state and local governments were about 5%. total about 7%. now the federal government is almost 257. almost a quarter of every dollar in this economy is spent

by the federal government. we're on a path to a more socialist type of society. social systems haven't worked. free market capitalist systems work with effective government regulations to reign in the eckeses, but we need to rely on the free market and it's what allows america to have 5% of the world's population. we produce 25% of the world's goods and services. that's a phenomenal accomplishment. and that wasn't accomplished by the government. it was accomplished by a free market system. host: one asks what's your response that higher marginal

rates have historically resulted in higher growth rates? guest: well, basically if you take a look over the last 50 years, the average revenue generation coming from the federal government has been about 18%. that's held pretty steady whether a top marginal rate was 17% or 35% or that's pretty much the tax rates since i've been alive. so as long as you're getting the same about of the economy, what's going to drive the economy hard? what's going to incentivize people? lower possible tax rates. my recommendation is lower the tax rate, increase the size of the pie, the size of the economy, and that's how you get more revenue. again, we do need more revenue. also reform our tax codes so

you don't have different treatments and different policies for different incomes in the tax code. >> good morning. caller: senator johnson, the premise that our government should be run like a business. the purpose of our government is to protect the our people from enemies foreign and domestic and for the general well fare of its people. >> the person that called and mentioned the trueman period of time. taxes at that point was 90%. at this point the effective tax rate is about 2% on that same group of speed. and you mentioned households, too.

when you can't pay your bills, you need more money. you get another job, you have more revenue, so the tax code, we can lower it from corporations who now pay less than nothing. we can lower it to 28%. but get rid of all the loop holes so we can repate rate those trillions of dollars that are sitting offshore. and as far as your free market theory, there is no free market. every country has tariffs and every country has regulations. our tariffs are 2%. other countries are 30% and 40%. and we're trying to compete with them. but the other issue i'd like to bring up is we'ved that experiment of your free non-existing free market. the ideology of supplies by economics for 30 years now. when it started, we were the biggest lender nation in the world. now we're the biggest borrower

legion in the world and we were the biggest manufacturers and now we manufacture next to nothing. but china has now decided to build wind turbines in our country because they can make more here than they can in their own country with their slave labor. host: lots to work with there. let's start with china's growth. and the united states' decline. >> well, guest: well, it starts from a pretty small base, so they can grow pretty rapid limit it's easy to have 300% growth company that a small company versus a large company. that same kind of dynamic works with countries as well. so it's starting from a very low base, so growth rates can be high versus a stable economy like the u.s. i do want to address one thing that gene said. i have no argument as far as

corporate loop holes. i'm a small to medium-sized business owner. i didn't come to washington to get a tax break. you take whatever tax breaks you can, but that's a problem. you have all these individual pages and carveouts and that is very crumenting to the process. one of the rns we've never had real tax reform is that's what causes businesses to come to washington and carve out special deals and i'm sure there's going to be campaign funds. i would really like to reform our tax system. make it a flatter system. get rid of the special deals. that isn't getting rid of depreciation. some of the things that are called subsidys are simply mislabeled. but again, i am all for dramatic, significant tax reform.

we have to do it. >> where are you on tariffs? guest: i definitely. i support free trade. the worst possible thing we could do is become protectionists. i look at china. my business affects 25 different countries, our largest export country is china. i don't fear trade. off lot of faith in american workers and the american economy. i look at china, truthfully as a huge market opportunity in the long-term. it's 1.2 billion people. yes, they are going to produce things and export things back into this country, but i think we have toe take the long-term view, here. and embrace the people, the world as their countries develop i talk about china, but eventually they will have their henry ford moment. he says he pays his workers and makes products affordable so

they can actually buy their own product. china is huge savers and eventually they will become huge spenders. so i don't fear free trade at all. we have to have fair trade. no doubt about it. we have to look at all those things on a case-by-case basis, but we need to embrace the fact that we are part of a global economy. let's embrace that and compete effectively. host: a tweet writing if it's the private sector that drives jobs, why sit that you're casting the president for not creating jobs? >> i'm cast gating the president for not leading this nation. right now our total debt is almost the same size of our economy, and there are all kinds of noted economic studies that say when you're at that level, you're in a dangerous

place as far as how they can proceed, so all the danger signals are there. we can go look at what's happening in greece. we're facing a potential debt crisis. what does that mean? what is that going to look like for the average family? i don't know. i can conjure something up like that in my own brain, but people around the world, investors are going to stop buying our debtor start demanding a much higher interest rate. if you look at greerks wasn't that long ago that their 10-year bond is priced at increasing more than 8%. for every 1% increase in interest rates for our federal budget. that's going to increase our entrance percentage -- that would add $1.2 trillion to our budget. to our interests. that's 1/3 of our budget right

now. that would carve out most other spending. so that's what we need to avoid. and what i'm cast gating the president about is not recognizing that and i realize he has a big job and has other worries. i understand that. but he should be far more engaged in solving this problem, and again, working in good faith with republicans, people like me. this is the only reason i ran for the u.s. senate. wasn't because i wanted to be a u.s. senator. it's because i realized our nation was in perle. and we've got fix the problem, and i'm disappointed in the fact that we need leadership. it hungers for it and it's not getting it. host: sally, you're on the air. caller: hello, senator johnson. guest: hello, sally. caller: i have a problem with the democrats are constantly, you know, saying taxes -- tax the rich. to me it's coveting the rich.

coveting thy neighbor. they went after the coal miners and taxed them then our electric bill goes sky high. they went after the big evil bankers and now we have all these banking fees and other things. and go after the the so-called -- now we pay -- coveting the rich does not work. it only hurts the poor people. that's my comment. guest: well, first of all, sally, i agree with you. i don't see where class warfare pro pells our economy forward. the wealthiest 1% gave pretty good share -- get a pretty good share of the nation's money but they also pay a giant share.

by increasing the tax rate on those who produce jobs, it brings -- you don't have the money available for wage increases, for investment of fork fork and for -- 401-ks and in effect that's what happens and people need to understand that. host: we had a caller from wisconsin. let me ask you if the budget battles in your own state are a preview of what might happen in the nation? guest: what's dropped in

comparison? what governor locker and the republicans he was dealing with might say is a $1.8 billion deficit per year. there have been estimates in year $1.65 trillion. our problem on a national level is almost 1,000 times lamper than what's happening in wisconsin. whether you agree or disagree with what governor walker did, at least we had elected officials that weren't just elected last november, step up to the plate, recognize they had a problem, towards problem, and lead and try and solve it. again, that's what i'm talking about with this president. he's not leading. a member of his own administration said his technique is leading from behind. i'm sorry, that's called following. that's not leadership. host: raleigh, north carolina, george, you're on.

republican? caller: thank you so much for coming on, today, senator johnson, and thank you, c-span, for bringing you on. i look at the total spending that's going on in washington. the culture of spending that's going on in washington. i look at this continuing, mounting debt. and i have to wonder what are the moral yes cases that this generation and the previous generation that is dumping all this debt on our future generations and going to force them to have a lower standard of living. i worry $14 trillion now, projections in 10 years, $25 trillion dollar what are we doing to my children and grandchildren? and i wonder if you could comment on that, senator. >> you kind of hit the nail on the head. that is the moral issue here. we are committing

intergenerational theft. that is immoral. i hope as americans, people my age and my parents' age really take a look at the situation. honestly, steve, the level of debt and deficit spending, and take a look at where the burden of that is going to fall. it's going to fall on their children, their grandchildren. we are in such a deep hole, it's probably going to be falling on our great grandchildren. at some point in time, it has to stofment susan, i'm saying the time to stop it is right now. it is. we simply can't continue down this path. if reason i came on is to talk about the debt ceiling. and i understand the fear if we don't increase that debt ceiling, what it may do to the markets and i don't want the play games with that at all, but truthfully, what we really need feel is the real weight of

the debt crisis, it's really on the backs of our children and grandchildren. and we cannot forget that. we are going around consuming. we are not building things and incurring things on that, we're consuming. that burried season going to fall on our children, and what will it look like when we are no longer the reserve and cannot print money to get us out of the situation. the less we fix the problem, we might have to are operate under a debt ceiling budget that wouldn't be the end of the world if we kept to it. host: that's it for our time, senator. thank you for being here. come back and talk to our viewers once again. guest: thank you. host: we're going to get a news update from our radio. when we come back, next,

gretchen morgan son returns. she is a reporter for "the new york times" and has been very much involved in writing about the financial crisis since 2008. she's amplified that with a new book called "reckless endangerment" and really looks at fannie mae and freddie mac and their role in the financial meltdown. we'll be right back. >> more on troop withdrawals, senator mccain speaking earlier on abc's good morning america and nbc's "today" show says president obama's type table for withdrawing troops in july should never have been set to start with. he added u.s. troops there are seeing significant success and any plans to withdraw forces should be modest.

and said one more fighting season and we could get this thing wrapped up. turning to libya. nato says one of its unmanned drones has disappeared over the country and denying reports an attack helicopter went down. libyan broadcasted quoted saying a nato attack helicopter has gone down but hit that nato says it hasn't lost any of its helicopters over the missions. and the first lady opened her visit today with a meeting of one of the wives of a south african president and she also plans to meet with the wife of south african president nelson mandela. those are some of the latest headlines. >> blackberry users, the radio

a are all commercial-free. you can also look into our signature interview programs each week all available around the clock wherever you are. download it free from blackberry a world. the supreme court is now available at the e book and tells story through the eyes of the justices themselves. 11 supreme court c-span introduce. elaina kagan and with the enhance book add to your experience by watching all the multimedia clips from all the justices. available now wherever e books are sold. next month or book tv's in-depth, writer and resident linda hogan. her books focusing on native americans includes the woman who watches over the world.

dwellings of the spirit living sunday, july 3 at noon eastern on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: gretchen morganson returns to the "washington journal" this morning. we've asked her to return to talk about her new book called "reckless endangerment" how greed and corruption led to arm feden. you tell us since 2008 a number of books have come out looking at various aspects of the cause of the financial crisis. how does your book differ from them? >> one of the main differences is we tried to really find out who was involved? who was central to laying the groundwork for the crisis. and we really had to go back in

time a significant amount, as far as back as the early 1990's. because the pain is still being felt today, and that didn't happen overnight. some of the other books that were written were either crisis moments, what was happening in september, 2008. or they looked back in time and concluded it was sort of like a tsunami, like an act of god. but what we really feel is that this was an act of man. this was not a force ma major or act of god. and we wanted to find out who those people were. >> in the book, you talk about an event that president bill clinton had in 1994 when he went to the annual convention of the realtor's association and called for a major effort on the part of his administration but also joining forces with the private and public second ors to increase

homeownership. we're going to listen to a little bit of this clip. we found it on youtube, and have you talk about what emanated from that from the white house. let's listen. >> i want them to write and send me in six months a detailed strategy that recommits america to homeownership that will add millions of new homeowners by the end of this century. i can assure you, just don't forget the end of this century is just a couple years away. i can assure you this is not a report that will sit object shelves. it is one that will be implemented, and let me be clear. this is not a government program. i have asked for the involvement of realtors, homeowners, fannie mae, freddie mac, ensurers. has been talents for humanity. 40 other groups already onboard to do their part. this is a -- an initiative based on coompings, not a

government program. we can achieve the results we seek for america's homeowners, if we take seriously about the way we reinvent and control the government. 23409 what government can provide but what government can help make it possible for you to provide. specifically, i've asked the secretary to focus in the beginning on at least three areas. first, a direct -- i directed this group to find ways to cut the costs and regulations involved in buying a home. host: i ended it request that, because the last point, cutting the costs and regulations involved in buying a home become essential to your book. but why is the other part tral to your story? i think you have a good clip there. >> it illustrates just how unusual it was. he made the point over and over

that this was not a government program but a collaboration with the private and public sect ore. and reading between the lines here, and what ultimately happened was regulation was cut and regulators were kind of invited into this partnership with the other and was a really unusual moment because of that. when can you think of another time when regulators, who are supposed to police if industry, like the banking industry are invited to collaborate with the industry to promote an ideal? so it was a really pivotible moment. an important moment for a push. deemed to be a win-win for everyone to help promote homeownership. so people involved in the direction the country took, and one person who was asked to lead one of the government-sponsored the

groups, fannie mae, it's a long and complicated tale in the book, but tell us the essentials you want the people to know about james johnson and his role in phan fan and how it grew its role and essentially the financial crisis. guest: well, the reason jim johnson is integral to this story is he was the chief operating executive and stayed on at a high level until 19. this was the period of time when fannie mae really grew its balance sheet and started to become much more aggressive in relaxing underwriting standards and sort 06 promoting this idea that president clinton talks about of pushing homeownership to people who previously had not been homeowners. first, time home byars. immigrants.

people who were in lower level income areas where they had not been able to buy a home because of the down payment requirements. jim johnson was also extremely critical in the 1992 safety and soundness legislation that congress wrote the try to prevent the stacks pair from being on the hook. so he was making sure the company did not have a lot of capital on hand to protect against losses. hen wanted to keep that capital cushion thin, and he also made sure the regulators that was going to be overseeing fannie after this 1992 legislation wound a 1998-pound weakling. something he and his colleagues could control. they were important elements in 1992 which set the groundwork

for where we got to in 2008 when both fannie and freddie had to be taken other by the taxpayer. >> he explained he did this by bringing his political skills to bear and doing an all-en fronts campaign in established fannie mae as a good citizen. at the same time being involved with contributions to congress. and criticizing the regulators. it was really an all-fronts battle also suggesting later that other financial institutions watched the success of this and began to emulate it. will you talk about that? guest: sure. before jim johnson came to fannie mae, it was sort of a sleepy utility. it was a company that was designed, as you know, back in 1938 to provide liquidity, by the government. to provide mortgage financing disease a buyer.

it was difficult to get a loan, then phan and freddie mac would be there. that changed dramatically in 1991 when mr. johnson came to fannie mae, because he understood at that moment in time. we had just been through the within the fannie mae and fred 23re7979 that the taxpayers would have to shoulder. so they decided to go act having this legislation to -- set up to protect those ewho with suffered from those losses. what was -- it was crucial to its success and crucial to its profitability. he wanted to protect that. at all costs. and so it became a political animal. it had been a utility. it became a political animal. that meant he had to make

donations to congress and set up offices around the country where he could set up things like ribbon-cutting ceremonies. had the foundation promote this by paying for advertisements for homeownership. it was, as you described, an all-fronts war. a lot of it was external, too, and it was really a strategic move to sort of wrap the country in the american flag of homeownership so that it would be impervious to critics saying it could risk the taxpayers. host: if we go into our video library when president george w. bush, he had a similar thing happen.

had all those around the table and underscored his administration's commitment. in watching that clip, the president also goes on to say there would be money made available for those who could not afford their initial down payment to allow them to have access to fundses to make the down payment. is this really a story out of the clinton administration or out of the bush administration as well? >> this story really spans both sides of the aisle, susan. fannie mae understood that in the early years under johnson that they needed to keep their friends close and their enemies closer. so that meant anytime a critic would come up, they would do whatever they needed to, to make sure that critic was either silenced or -- which as

president clinton did, it's like the homeownership plan was a win-win for everyone and that these enterprises could facilitate this. so instead of making the program you could account for on the balance, this was a government project that allowed an interimmediate area or two in this case. fannie mae and freddie mac, to accept and take subsidies and then to try to achieve the goal of homeownership. in between that point a and point b, there was a lot of money sloshing around. and the executives of both of those took a great deal of it and the shareholders of those companies took a great deal of it, too. host: was there any estimates on the size of fannie mae's failure and how much it will wind up costing taxpayers?

guest: well, at the moment $154 billion is what the taxpayers are on the hook for, for both fannie and freddie. it's really hard to say how that will shake out. obviously we're still going through the home -- through the problems with homes and forclosures. host: massachusetts congressman barney frank is written about. why? guest: well, he has been a supporter of fannie and freddie almost until the very end when they had failed or were about to fail. he was a big supporter of housing projects and so it's not surprising that he would have been a huge supporter.

but what we discovered was interesting in that this was an example of how shrewd fannie mae was about how it rewarded its friends in congress. mr. frank, of course sits and has sat on the committees that oversee fannie mae and freddie mac. and financial services, we found in 1991, for example, fannie mae hired mr. frank then who had just graduated from business school, and mr. frank spoke to the company about higher him and of course the company was very, very happy to, you know, accommodate the congressman in that case. and it just was a very interesting illustration on how this company operated. >> then you write at the close of 2010, barney frank had this to say.

>> i think blaming phan fand freddie mac -- blaming fannie and freddie are a mistake. what's your reaction to that? guest: well, i think he's right about fannie and freddie getting it going. certainly as we report on it, wall street and unscrupulous mortgage lenders took this ball and ran with it big time. this was not simply fannie mae and freddie mac at the wheel. so he's right about that. this is something that they began and then wall street and mortgage lenders took and really in a race to the bottom. host: our twitter comment says i'm sorry if i don't believe they are altruists. specifically, give me names, who stood the most to gain? guest: well, i think that's

almost a sort of monetary question. so in many, many cases, these things are not measurable by dollar amounts. many, many of the politicians that were supporting fannie and freddie, we see these sort of more nebulous or less measurable purposes with that. for instance, as i said, the ribbon-cutting ceremonies, the headlines in the local papers about the projects that they were on hand to support when fannie mae was financing a project. there were campaign contributions to be sure. but there also were the foundation-made contributions to, you know, pet projects of congress people. for instance, returning back to barney frank, the fannie mae foundation made two donations

to a charity that was cofounded by his mother in boston. the apt of $75,000. this was just one example. and there were many. it was a foundation that had $350 million worth of fannie mae stock deposited into it, to make these kinds of contributions. >> there's been a cast of characterize at the beginning of the book which includes fannie may and its friends. we mentioned the executive vice president of fannie mae from 1993-1997. top doubter about the white house. we will talk to another doubter, subprime enablers. the former chief executive of countrywide. and then at any final list is sectless regulators.

you list tim geithner who is now the treasury secretary. why do you describe him as a sectless regulator? >> well, don't forget as the head of the federal reserve bank in new york, he was charged with overseeing citi bank and other large institutions in new york. and that was one of the major colossal failures of the regulatory era leading up to the crisis, because citi bank of course took on enormous risks and then had to be assisted by the taxpayer in 2008. so he was just one of the people who really had a kul chir of collegialty, collaboration with the very institutions. this goes back to the list at the beginning which is we're going to enlist our

collaborators. so the reserve was a quintessential example of that. mr. geithner, seemed like he was really in the mind's medal of the bankers. it was not a questioning relationship. it was not a typical what you would consider to be policing relationship. so it really is his years at the new york fed that caused him to be on that particular list. host: anthony, a democrat, you are on the air. caller: hi. thank you so much. ms. morlingenson, had you at all looked at the developer robert tusey? i heard time and time again that he was not prosecuted. but he was of over -- george

bush granted a pardon to the jafment it just revealed it was a prime example to predatory lending and favor to high-ranking officials, and the whoa case was pretty much thrown out and covered up, i would say. have you looked into that? or could you look into that? guest: i'm sorry. i don't know the details of that have particular case, brand-new it sounds like one of many that i think really has ended up not being prosecuted aggressively. this sounds like something i would be very interested in looking into and seeing. but i'm very unfamiliar with it right now. host: have the obama department offered the state of prosecutions going on in the case of the bad actors?

guest: they have declined to comment when my colleagues and i have asked this very comment. why have there been so few prosecutions of major participants when we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars to the taxpayer and you really want to know how can it be that there were no crimes commit you had. i am not a lawyer or prosecutor. but our sources tell us one soft reasons for the lack of prosecutions right now is that in the years leading up to the crisis, during the boom, regulators were not collecting the data. not pursuing aggressively the kinds of behavior that were questionable. so now they do not have any kind of fact-figures basis for bringing the case.

going back to this partnership idea that we were collaborating. that regulators were collaborating, and that it was business. so not only did they not stop or reign in some of the troublesome practices while they were going on, now that it's afterwards, they really don't have the -- it's troubling, i think. host: randy, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm looking forward to buying your boofpblgt i've heard a lot about it on conservative talk radio. and one thing you mentioned. in bush's defense, i would like to say i think he did try to address this problem unsuccessfully, but i think that by a measurable amount of the democrats, they seem to be

digging deeper into this pie. and i'm wondering what type of reexception -- because i've been anxiously awaiting to hear more and more of this book, and i'm really glad c-span had you on this morning, and i'm interested to hear what kind of reception you're getting from other, what we would consider more liberal media outlets? or are you going to be on "60 minutes"? because the book doesn't obviously make the government look very good, and basically i wonder if the receipt answer on government officials' parts is based partly on their roles being brought up in this. guest: well, i don't know if

"60 minutes" will invite me on, but i appreciate your interest in it, and i hope you enjoy your book. we've had a very good reception. and i think people understand that this was not a one-sided deal. but as for the regulators and their accountability here. i think you are absolutely right. i think there's a huge risk to them, to the very people who were supposed to be policing these practices. there's a big risk to those people to be shown as either inin an effort or incompetent. so that could be very easily a reason why we are not being aggressive about the prosecutions. i think that we have to also look at the fact that -- and this we try to do in our book as well, how many people have gone on to bigger and more powerful jobs. how many people who were at

fannie mae during this period, are now in positions of power, and really sort of wonder about how that could be. host: next call is from arkansas. good morning, paul. caller: i wonder if the lady who wrote the book thought about this whole thing being contrived. president clinton, who was a build a burger, by the way. relaxing the regulations to set up the whole thing then bush, with skull and bones continued this and then timothy geithner, who is in charge of the treasury is a build a burger. suddenly no one goes to jail. he said on september 12, 2008.

a.i.g. called him and said they were out of funds. what was the day before sept 12? september 11, 2008. doesn't that raise some questions in your mind? i hope you thought about that in your book. the run on the banks was september 11, 2008. how about that? bye.guest: i certainly can sympathize with people who feel that this might be something of a conspiracy. i particularly in not certain about that. -- i particularly am not certain about that. it was more of a collaboration. what really was the difference here, and i will go back to this clip that you showed at the top, the idea it was not going to be a government program. the beauty of a government program is that you can see the

cost of it on the balance sheet, but this was going to be something that the private sector was going to get involved in, so the taxpayers were ultimately on the hook as we found out, but it was hidden from view, because the fannie mae/friday met -- freddie mac could claim they would never going to cost the taxpayers a cent because they were well- managed and well run. we all know how that turned out. i think this is a cautionary tale going forward for people to understand that now after the crisis, and even with dodd/frank legislation we have more to big to fail institutions than before going into the crisis. before the crisis we have the too big to fail institutions. now we have major banks that everyone understands will be bailed out if they get into trouble. that is one of the really troubling consequences of the

actions that were taken by the regulators when the boom went bust. >> we often get calls about bill burgers -- buildaburgers. jim johnson went on to head the brookings institution. he was very much involved in john kerry's bid for the presidency. here is what you white. -- what you write --

so the role of these organizations is what? >> i think it is a power base. the world of washington is of course about power. unlike wall street where it is about money. the more of these institutions that people are members of, the more they mix with others and power. it does create this idea that there is this group who is making all of the major decisions in the world, and they are all members of the state organizations. the point of describing jim johnson's affiliation was to describe what kind of -- this man spans the private sector in public sector.

he was very much involved with the company, which of course was involved in the mortgage markets during the boom. he was also in the public sector. the brookings institute, think tanks. this was just a person who was really around wall street and washington and illustrative of the revolving door. >> next call is for it -- from to come up. this is from agreed to is a republican there. -- this is from tacoma from reed , a republican there. caller: i have a couple of questions on whether your guest has done any of valuation on the extent that the fed has

artificially through several administrations cut the interest rates at a logical rate so that the free market would not allow credit cards to be extended, any of it. the free market would not have allowed it. the eventual talked about, the shell game of the default credit swaps and how the entities do not have any meet in the game, so they are happy with pushing on the taxpayer. my question is, have you ever done any research on bank of america and where where they st? they were rewarded for bad behavior just like today. so they change the brand name to bank of america. have you done any research on the history of bank of america? thank you, c-span. done extensive

research on the history of bank of america, so i cannot really address that question, but it is a huge enterprise, and in the middle of the four clincher crisis absolutely, especially since it acquired countrywide financial, which is one of the leading subprime originators and also the biggest supplier of loans to be the way during the 1990's. the bank is front and center in a crisis still today obviously. the question on whether or not these institutions can be held accountable i think is a good one. if you go back in time and see they have not been in previous years and yet again they're given a pass, it does contribute to the idea that there are two sets of rules and america. one for the big and powerful institutions that have the

potential to disrupt world financial markets if they get into trouble and the rest of us on main street. that is a very pernicious you, but it is really fed by the actions that have been taken to come out of this crisis. keeping their rates as low as the federal reserve has been certainly contributed in 2003 to the beginning of the media, and it continued. they were kept too low for too long, but now because we're in a crisis, i think they would argue they have to be kept low to keep the economy percolating so they -- so that we do not go back into recession or even worse. it was a problem, and it did contribute to the crisis by keeping their rates low during the middle of the first decade of the century. >> we're sending an e-mail by mary --

-- we were sent an email by mary -- this e-mail from alan -- >> there were some moments in guest: there were some moments in time when certain people in congress tried to raid in fannie mae. richard baker was on the subcommittee of financial services. he tried to raid in the company and was really treated to the men's firepower. there was an interesting thing yet.

he tried to get the executive pay of the company. he wanted to know what the top executives were paid at fannie mae and freddie mac. it was a huge struggle to get that information. there was pushed back after push back. they did not want to disclose it. when they did, they said if they revealed a publicly they would sue him. they hired tennis star to be their lawyer to pursue such a suit revealed the executive pay of the bay may top people. >> how much did he make during his tenure? >> it is estimated 100 million. it was a tremendous amount of money. it was of course overtime, but he left the company with a very lucrative consulting agreement. it was a tremendous amount of money for a company that was supposed to be government-

sponsored. new haven, connecticut. you are on the air. caller: i have three comments. i have a friend who is a mortgage originator. she makes prime and subprime mortgages. she absolutely insist there are very good subprime mortgages that can be made and should be made. that is my first comment. the second is that i think one of the things that animated james johnson is he knew there were wall street interests who want to take over fannie mae, and i think he was trying to prevent fannie mae and the american public from that happening. if you read the book by serum mclain, you see that

[inaudible] is far worse than fannie mae. host: thank you. other motivations for mr. johnson. guest: the battle between the big banks and then in may, it was a very interesting relationship that was a love/hate relationship, because the banks wanted to be able to sell the loans to fannie mae, but they also did not want any made to get too big so that they could compete with them. also be made felt the same way. they wanted to be able to buy the loans, but they did not what the banks to usurp their position. there was this conflict and tension between the two entities, and in the late stages mania, wall street took

the ball and ran with it. host: tennessee and next. every time theyng the come up with a program to make things fair for everyone, it ends up being unfair to everyone. when president bush asked congress to have hearings on fannie mae, it was maxine waters and barney frank that stop the whole thing. who can forget her saying i think you are doing a good job, and how much money did he steal, and why is no one in jail over this? guest: this is a question that i get a lot. again, why no one in jail is a question for the prosecutors to answer, and i am not one, so i cannot answer that. it is very disturbing to see people like the executives at

fannie mae walk away with tens of millions of dollars, if not more, and leave the wreckage that they left behind for the taxpayer to clean up. i think one of the most disturbing aspects of the story is the taxpayer is still paying the legal bills for the top executives of the name day against the shareholder lawsuit. here we are not only paying for the bad actions taken during the boom, but we are continuing to pay to defend the very people who took those actions against the shareholder lawsuit. it really is the deep paradoxes of this story. this is a question for your guest. i would like to know if she has explored the connections between the elite business

schools on wall street and the government. for instance, in the 19 they started schools and professorships were started. they provided the intellectual know-how about the modeling devises they are using. they all came out of universities and the history of public financing and the likes. the knowledge-based and to date attracted as students and to the recommended to wall street or the government were carefully groomed. laterd up 10-years lat know pretty protecting anything. i think the area of inquiry would be the universities. guest: one of the really

interesting aspects of fannie mae all-fronts for was to cut what the academic community. they did this by paying for endless papers to be written about the benefits of home ownership, the benefits of owning over renting. it is tremendous numbers of papers that were done over decades of time. so your viewer is absolutely right, fannie mae did call off the academic -- call on the academic community. the knowledge base was completely one-sided. you really have almost no voices on the other side, because almost everybody had been bought and paid for by fannie mae. host: santa barbara. independent. aller: is this more kids tms. n

familiar with the article that eliot spitzer wrote a couple of years ago regarding the fit the state attorney general that wrote a letter wanting to help legislation to protect the consumers against predatory loss and bush reach back to an 18 50s bank act that could have put an end to the whole thing, where it would have helped with the predatory lending laws that were being perpetrated? are you familiar with any of that? guest: what i am familiar with is what you're describing, office of the comptroller of the currency. they sued state attorneys general to prevent them from pursuing predatory lending

actions against these banks. it is absolutely true. the o.c.c., a regulator in washington, actually sued attorneys general to prevent them from being able to pursue predatory that the actions against dubious lenders in their own states. it was really an important moment that we described in the book. is a call from maryland. dennis is a democrat there. caller: good morning. how were you? i am very much confused as where blame should really go. clinton had a very good idea in terms of being able to increase homeownership in the united states. this was a very good concept. but you should remember carefully that once he put

forth that program or concept, the republicans in congress and senate, they put forth regulations. secondly, between 2001 and 2008, when the crisis really was created, george bush was reluctant with regulations. they deliberately allowed the corporations to run well, because they refuse to enforce the regulations, even those that were on the books. to blame the democrats and say the democrats were at fault, clinton was not at fault.

he had a good concept. guest: i think the concept was ok, but the execution was terrible. i think inviting public sector participation is a recipe for disaster. i would absolutely agree that the bush administration was for relaxing regulations, which only added to the problem. the crucial regulation that was eliminated, that was protecting consumers from bankers was the glass beagle act, which was finally eradicated in 1999. -- glass stegal act. this was both parties very interested in a relaxing regulation of the financial markets. i think both felt that was a way to achieving the goal of home

ownership, but i think we have seen the consequences of home -- , ownership and to learn from them. -- consequences of home mortgages it ownership and should learn from them. host: among them is the maestro, alan greenspan, and gramm himself. the party atmosphere continued later when jim leach, the chairman of the house banking committee who is now at harvard, hosted an event that would help push through the legislation. greenspan and other luminaries shared champagne and cake with reporters.

we're talking with gretchen about her book. the next call is from michigan. this call is from david, a republican. caller: to questions. the government started a program to help people called hope. this helps with mortgage extensions and stuff like that. chase big understand your working with this companies. -- banks understand you are working with this company, and they automatically disconnected any communication with you.

i was on the line personally with the program hope. they put a block on your phone, which forces everyone into foreclosure, because you'r cannot find out anything on your loan. more importantly, arizona and all of these states are 4.5 million acres on fire. there is a solution, contain a control system that can help all of these fires. we have contacted the white house through emails. different media outlets. this is something that how many more firefighters have to die, how many more people have to lose their homes when there is help available? we have an intervention force to contain and control system to prevent these fires. we have been everywhere with

these and we get no response. host: have you call your senators? caller: no, i tried to get a hold of the governor of arizona. we are dealing with governor schwarzenegger's office and now he has been replaced. host: i might suggest you call the to arizona senators since the fire is this time located in their state. how about his first point there? guest: the point being about the home ownership, the help for homeowners. the treasury's program, which was designed to help homeowners who were in trouble with loans has been a disaster. it has been an absolute failure. this contributes to the idea that while the government was happy to throw billions of dollars at the major institutions that created the problem, homeowners who were in

trouble were really given slap of a hand. it really is an unfortunate aspect of the aftermath of the crisis, because main street has not been helped to anywhere like the degree that wall street and the big institutions have. it is a crying shame. host: pittsburgh, john. caller: you know as well as i do that 75% of the subprime is originated outside. moreover, those who originated under in may and freddie mac of the redevelopment act were at half the rate of the loans that did not, because a delay in freddie mac are required to be displayed. they were not doing loans. no income or assets. also, this is a wall street

problem. the financial meltdown was caused by wall street, by the bad loans into use debt obligations. these were then sold to others. credit defaults swaps, which were a form of insurance guarantee the buyers against others. then they were sold to other financial firms that have not bought the cbo's. . this is a massive shell game on wall street. finally the bubble burst when house prices did not continue to appreciate at 3% or more per year. host: let me jump in at that point. guest: absolutely correct that wall street was a huge player in this mess, and that is made absolutely clear in the book.

we do not make any bones about wall street's participation. it exacerbated the crisis and help create the securities that were really just a ridiculous expansion of allowing many more bad mortgages to be made. absolutely agree with you, but danny ray really led the way early on in this crisis, well before wall street got going. so it is the continual arm that i think we have to look at that involves both the private sector and the government- sponsored enterprises. you cannot say it is one or the other, it was a collaboration, and that is where really come down to and go back to the very beginning of the show. host: new jersey. ed, republican. caller: i love c-span, and you have a really good guest today. i am greg to jump off track a

little bit here, and i am going to say you guys are like going after the modern stuff, and i think you should go back to the dollar tried to be brought up with roosevelt to 100 cents on the dollar, and these guys have been devaluing our dollar. every couple of years they have something big like this come up. you have been a real good guest. guest: you mentioned the s&l crisis of the 1980's. what we talk about a little bit earlier was the safety and soundness legislation that was set up in 1992 by congress to protect the taxpayer losses was of a direct result of the s&l crisis.

unfortunately it was manipulated by the company and lawmakers who were supported of the company, so it did not protect the taxpayer as it was designed to. so yes the s&l crisis is the jumping off point for the beginning of the crisis we have just been through. host: let me conclude quickly with two paragraphs from the close of this book -- again, this goes back to the dodd/frank legislation that

was designed to fix the crisis or make it not happen again. unfortunately the biggest elephant in a room is too big to fail institutions, which by bailing them out in 2008, we sent a signal to the entire world that at these institutions, if you are big enough, if you are powerful enough in your tentacles reach far enough into the world at large, you will be rescued if you get into trouble. i think that is the biggest issue we have to confront after the crisis finally recedes. host: "reckless endangerment" is a portrait of modern washington. she is one of the co-authors of this book. regular reporter on wall street for "the new york times." we have one more segment to go. it is fine about 30 eastern

time. that will be understanding more about the supreme court rulings on the walmart class action suit for women. we will be back with the reporter from "the lost angeles times." >> former utah governor, jon hunstman, says he respects president obama, but he and the presidents have "a difference of opinion on how to help the country blue book we both love." here are his work -- hear his remarks when he formally announces his run for the presidency at the top of the hour. live coverage of this network. on wall street stock futures are pointing to a higher opening on hopes that a great vote scheduled for later in the day will help the country tavoid default. this is a move needed to get the

next installment of emergency loans from the european union. the federal reserve, economists expected to keep interest rates rose. -- interest rates low. the senate votes on the confirmation on leon panetta. this is ahead of next week's retirement by robert gates. the senate is expected to overwhelmingly confirmed leon panetta today so that he can take over right away. live said coverage on c-span2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> every weekend it is american history teacher feet on c-span3, starting saturday mornings. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. watch personal interviews and even spirited revisit key figures, bottles, and events during the 150 anniversary of the civil war.

visit college classrooms across the country during elections on history. go behind the scenes on american artifacts. the presidency looks of the policies and legacies of past american presidents. get the complete schedule of c- span.org/history. sign up to have a e-mailed to you. >> this weekend "book tv" looks at the literary life of savannah, georgia. it will include the childhood home of novelist flannery o'connor. the conversation with the sister of jim williams. also, a tour of eastern slavery sites. go to american history tv on c- span3. travel to the founding days of savannah as we visit a plantation and explore antebellum and civil war savanna with a story.

c-span local content vehicles in savannah, ga., this weekend on c-span 2 and 3. blackberry users, and now you can access programming anytime with c-span radio app. non-fiction books and american history all commercial free. all available around the clock were ever you are. download it free from blackberry app world. host: on your screen is david savage. he covers the court for t"the lost angeles times." he has the top story. angeles times." guest: this is really an issue about statistics.

suppose you have statistical evidence that has a big company on average women are paid $1,000 per less per year, and there is 100,000 of them. the question is could you bring a big class-action lawsuit in say there must be some sort of systematic discrimination from a look at the statistics. the court basically said no, 5-4 split. it says you have to point to some policy that caused the women to be paid less. that was the key issue. can you go forward with a claim based on statistical evidence or do you have to point to something that shows the company intended to discriminate in some way? host: there were two decisions. what was the difference? guest: all nine of the justices thought there was a plot and the way this was brought, because it was brought under the class action thing that is an all or nothing decision. even the liberal justices said

it is unfair to not allow women -- some people wanted to opt out of these cases. this was supposedly represented 1.5 million women. part of the losses you can opt out of class actions. there is another feared is provision for a company that says if you're bored to pay money, there should be individualized hearings. nine of them thought this could not proceed as one big whopper of a case. the crucial issue was what do you have to show to go forward, and that is where they split 5- 4. ruth ginsberg and more liberal justices thought there is quite a bit of evidence of discrimination that goes across this company. they cited the statistics. they would have allowed the plaintiffs to go back and try again to bring a class-action claim. host: to give you a flavor of the oral argument, we will play two clips. one is justice scalia.

he ended up writing the majority opinion. >> at the sam walton institute where every manager has to be trained for the become a manager, they provide as a response to a standard question, why are women so under represented or few women in management? the response given was because men seated it's meant more aggressive. that is the stereotypical statement provided to every person going through the management training program that they then go off and informed their decisions when they make these discussions to make promotions. >> how could that cause -- caused them to intentionally discriminate on the basis of sex? >> they have an intent to take sex into account in making their decisions. that is they apply a stereotype about women being less

aggressive when it comes to assessing their suitability for promotions. host: that exchange was and joseph sellers who represented the women of wal-mart in this case. guest: they are really talking past each other. joe is saying this company had -- it was taught to managers that men make better managers because they're more aggressive and driven. he is saying this is evidence that there was a culture here of treating women differently. justice scalia does not buy it. host: we want to get your telephone calls. all of the information on the bottom of your screen.

we're talking about what the decision means for business and wal-mart. let's listen to ruth ginsburg, the justice who offered the dissent in this. she came to the court in up background in the women by is and discrimination suits. >> a company gets reports month after month showing that women are disproportionately passed over for promotions. there is a pay gap between men and women doing the same job. it happened not once, but twice. isn't there some responsibility

to stop this? >> there is an obligation for a company to ensure there are not wage gaps in discrimination, but here if one looks at the aggregated statistics, it points to a completely different issue. it does not show there were gender gaps at the stores among comparable people. that is really the fundamental flaw in their case. host: that is the glimpse of the argument from the attorney who represented wal-mart. guest: they're getting into what the statistics actually show. ruth ginsberg said 70% of the hourly workers at wal-mart or women. 33 percent of the managers are women. the statistics show the higher up you go, the more likely it is dominated by men. part of the liberal justice is that shows something is going

on. something is worthy of pursuing in a lawsuit. host: your article makes the case the ruling might all but end class-action lawsuits. i am did try to plant at the reporting of analysis. -- hyatt have been trying to glance at the reporting of analysis. give us the case of what you think this will mean. guest: when class actions really took off in the mid-1960's, the notion was to bring a suit in get the company to change policy. there were suits with the tracking forms were the police department that we're not promoting any african americans. -- there were suits with the trucking firms or police department for not promoting any african americans. later on it became a matter of seeking money. this decision yesterday, including the part that was

unanimous, suggests it will be very hard to bring a case that seeks a change of getting money. i think some class actions could go forward. african americans have sued cities like chicago and said your firefighter test is unfair, you should change it. i can see those kinds of class actions continuing, because they are seeking a change in a policy, but i think a lot of the lawyers think that if you want a huge do that seeks money -- huge suit that seeks money, it will be very hard to get that to go forward. host: i'm going to read a tweet -- guest: outside this country? i think they're quite rare. i am no expert on foreign ball, but i think they're more of an american innovation. as i say, class actions came

along as a way to change policies. another one is there were suits challenging mandatory retirement. the police department or airline department had a 60-year-old airline retirement, all of the employees could join that class- action lawsuit and say that is unfair because it is based on age discrimination. when it becomes complicated is when they are trying to seek a lot of money. not only justice scalia, but the other liberal justices think it is unfair to have 1 million people bringing a class-action lawsuit that could result in billions of dollars of damages and then try to figure out how to split of the fund. i think the money part is we will see a lot less of the big money class-action spirites. host: how word, an independent. an independent.

caller: i was wondering, it seems to me they decided on the procedural issue without deciding on the merits of the case. would you not think in past years a supreme court might have done just that instead of preaching the merits of the case at all? guest: which procedural issue? caller: the one about whether it should be brought as a class action. as i see, it is a different issue. in other words, you mentioned earlier they did not give the people option to opt out of the class action for example. so could it they dispose of this by saying they did not give them an option to opt out and leave it at at that? guest: they could have agreed on the narrow idea of saying this is flawed and go back again.

the whole question was, could these women join together and sue as a class? this is like giving to first base in a lawsuit. this is not anywhere near a trial on whether walmart discriminated. the question was could you pursue -- perceived as a class. -- the question is could you proceed as a class? is there a common issue that affects all of these people? five of the justices wanted to say, no, -- if you have 500 store managers and make their decisions, we do not think that present a common issue. the problem earlier were you are suing to attack the mandatory retirement age, that is a common policy. i think the majority wanted to rein in class actions to some

degree and focus them on things where there is really a common issue, not the way to attack broad discrimination in a giant company that goes across the country. host: this case was 10 years in the making. we have a timeline. this is courtesy of "the washington post." apologize for that. the show's the progression through the federal court until yesterday's decision. as we look at that, let's take our next call from parkville, missouri. gabriel is a republican there. caller: i was based in a situation where women were getting promoted over males, and we were told they needed to hire women over meals, because they look better doing what we did which was selling food at a restaurant. discrimination takes place in

all kinds of deals. i do not think is right to sue. you work harder and you prove yourself in a job. i think the need to stop -- i see the need to stop these lawsuits as well, because it is not fair to the company that your opinion your not being treated as fairly as you should. i worked in a company where the majority of the work force were women. i was passed a promotion where i should have gone it for a woman, but i did not get mad at her, i worked harder. host: thank you. guest: i think he represents many people. there are lots of different factors that goes into who gets promoted into is not. most people may be unhappy but are not inclined to bring up a big lawsuit. host: next call from san diego. dean, a democrat.

caller: until you are discriminated against -- i am a black male from the south, and i have been discriminated against. until you have been discriminated against, you do not know how it feels. we need to look at and see what this country is doing to ignore black people. they are taking away everything that they work for. the system is taking it away from them. look at what they're doing in michigan, florida. they're taking all of our rights away. we need to forget about the democrat, republican from independent system, and we should go out and start fighting for our rights, because the federal government is sticking our rights away.

there is 9 + 6 million people that say they were discriminated against. -- there is 9.6 million people that say they have been discriminated against. host: let's get a response. thank you. guest: we have to callers take opposite sides of the view. it is the case that the supreme court's ruling will make it very hard -- if a big company discriminates in a small way -- there was a case earlier this year were supposed to have a credit card anything there is a $50 charge that is unfair, the court has been making a harder for those types of class-action lawsuits as well. class-action suits at their best our way to remedy small

discriminations that affect a lot of people. five of the justices think in this case we really are not talking about discrimination. the more liberal justices were saying you are closing the door for people to get in the door to put a spotlight on small, but systematic discrimination. host: this is from a twitter viewer who writes -- have any sense from the questioning you board or the tenor of the opinion that her point of view reflect the justices? guest: it is clearly an overstatement, but there is something to be said of the clip that you played earlier. they were trying to say they think men are better managers because they're more aggressive. that sure sounds like a type of

discrimination, but justice scalia did not see it at all. you could say he is less sensitive to that concern and others. host: albuquerque, new mexico. good morning, joe. caller: i have a comment to make when he was talking about the liberal justices. it has become my humble opinion that liberals or whenever you want to call them, left-wing progressives, democrats, they cannot function unless they had and someone to blame. in class action lawsuits, nine times out of 10, the only people that really benefit are the lawyers that bring the suit. all of the other hundred people

that are involved in the lawsuit, they end up getting some coupons or gift certificate or something like that. the lawyers walk away with all the money. why is that? because i contend that nd gressive ts amd democrats have been so linked up with labor unions and things like that, and even some of the supreme court justices, they were appointed by a consummate chicago politician who is so in the pockets of labor unions that it is undeniable. it is a fact. guest: the calller certainly found people to blame, trial lawyers from the democrats, president obama.

different view. host: lost angeles is next. carmen who is a democrat there. -- los angeles. caller: i think the decision over the supreme court is only fair. it is caused by the conservative justices to deny civil-rights over women workers. president obama says this is a move that made equal play for both genders. this was supposed to be upheld, you know, and in force by the department of justice. i believe the individual case against wal-mart managers would be more appropriate, you know. host: let me get that point.

thank you for the call. he references the better pay roll. i was confused because at the end he thinks individual cases would be much more effective, which is what the supreme court said as well. guest: there is nothing that says women cannot bring individual claims. anybody can bring an individual claim if they can prove illegal discrimination. practically speaking, no one who has said i am paid $1,000 less that walmart will bring a lawsuit. it is economically impractical. it is the case that parts of this lawsuit could proceed. justice aliyahs said if you could point to one store manager who -- justice scalia said if you can point to one store manager prefers men over women, that would be a case. some regions were worse than

others. it is possible this lawsuit could be chopped up and brought in and parts. as i said earlier, it is still cast doubt on whether we can have these wide, a nationwide claims. had the wal-mart plaintiffs won in it had gone forward, attorneys were ready to bring other big cases against retailers nationwide. how about fast food chains or something like that? even a big. -- a bank. if you looked at the statistics, you might find a lot of the tellers are women and a lot of the managers are men. if you look at the statistics, you could say that looks like discrimination. i think this case is really a big deal, because there would have been a lot of other claims going forward against other big employers. host: let's take a quick look at some of the editorial pages on this.

"usa today" -- "the new york times" -- "the wall street journal" -- we're talking with david savage about the walmart decision yesterday. let's go next to hamilton, ohio. an independent. caller: good morning. my whole problem is why not look into the whole politics of wal-mart's health policy? host: ok. thank you. separate issue altogether looking at wal-mart's disability policy. we cannot help you with that. david republican in arkansas. as we talk about the court ruling yesterday. question or comment from us? david, turn down the tv volume in go ahead, please.

sorry, he it was made to the program and not ready for the call. -- he is listening to the program and not ready for the call. where were to move on. caller: the supreme court it is the majority ruled against people in favor of corporations. i think that is a good way to look at this. if you want individuals, people who think have been freed, they should have the power to go up against a multibillion-dollar, multinational corporation. in order to do that they have to be able to group together in use the class as a way to go up against these corporations. if they do not have that power, than the corporations can do what they want in treat workers the way that they want. -- and three workers the way

that they want. the employed need a mechanism, some form of power, something to threaten the corporation into doing good work. the money penalty makes them behave well. whether or not a lot of the lawyers go to court and what have you, it puts them on notice they should behave well. that is what we need more of. corporations are much too powerful now. the problem on the supreme court is you have the majority on the coat that favors power for corporations against people. guest: that is a very good summary of the argument for class actions. the two things that they give a lot of people the opportunity

to ban the other against a powerful corporation, and secondly, they also put corporations on notice that you cannot allow this to continue. that is you cannot allow a situation where women are underpaid across the company. it puts pressure on corporations. the contrary argument is you can see why corporations or read about this, because a lot of the class actions, the corporate argument is there force to settle these lawsuits and pay a lot of money, even if they are not guilty. i thought that is a very good explanation of why class-action are important. host: next is pasadena, california. caller: what i have gone out of the whole ruling was the justices said having 1.5 million people filing one lawsuit is way too big. what they want the lawyers is to reduce this to maybe half a million or less and set up three

different individual class action lawsuits. that way one ruling will suffice for the other remaining three. that is all i had. if [laughter] [no audio] guestguest: i reallye scalia saying if you are going to sue, point to the things they're doing. point to a particular policy. host: dallas, texas. caller: in a way it is probably very good that this happened, because now the american people really know how wal-mart are treating their employees. we're talking about a class action of lawsuits. we could as americans, women do a class-action against wal-mart. for that many women to hav