summit foundation and a brighter. at 8:30 eastern, the economic senator petercoy will hold questions about his recent cover story. why the debt crisis is even worse than you think. and the united nations high commissioner for refugees. host: congressional leaders have until aug. 60 to appoint the 12 members of the newly created joint select committee on deficit-reduction. it is being referred to as the super committee because of the broad jurisdiction of powers. our question relates to the new super committee as it goes through the processes over the next three or four months, what would you like to see it focus on? would you like to see it focus on reforming entitlement cuts,

tax reform, some have suggested reforming or repealing the health care of all as part as the super committee's agenda. what would you like to see a focus on? that is our question on "the washington journal." you can also send in a tweet at twitter.com/cspanwj. you can continue the conversation on facebook. k.com/cspan.c "new york times" article this

morning --

host: that is from "the new york times." now this --

host: this is from the new republic --

host: that is from "the new republic" this morning. arc is of the air. -- mark is on the air. caller: the super committee should not exist. the congress of the united supposed to advise. if the legislative body does not go along with what they say within 30 days, they will automatically start cutting for making their own rules. host: we will discuss the

constitutionality of the super committee later on in the program. let's say it is formed in constitutional, where would you like to see it focus? caller: absolutely on the military. we're running a huge empire. we have to cut that back. host: beacon, new york. bob on the democrat line. caller: raise taxes. after the great recession a couple of years ago, everything changed for the wealthy in this country. the job creators are no more. they are building up their positions. they are adamantly against raising taxes, and they have the political clout to support their position. they have contacts in washington, d.c.

they do not want to raise taxes because it is the last action of well taken preserve. only in america. i have a final thought. only in america can the republicans convince and the tea party years convinced themselves, who probably are made up largely of middle-class persons, to rally in argue that tax breaks. also, if you would ask your guest about medicare, the average american will be able to buy into medicare. host: we got all your points. thank you very much. chase has cut the defense budget in half and we distributed as college grant funds clearly.

elisabeth tax the top 1% more in job creation started with the infrastructure, schools, in new housing. scott is an independent interfax, of virginia. where would you like to see the joint committee focus? caller: i like the first calller, think it is unconstitutional for the super committee, but since you forced us to reassure the question, i will say they need to focus on the federal reserve. also, checking in on the fraud that came from the banks. all the money that was given to them and the fraud. that is where all the money went. i think we really need to focus on that, because that is where the problem came from and where it is. no one was held accountable for that.

host: see which programs are duplicates and cut the second come third, and fourth program that is supposed to do the same thing as the first program. kent, connecticut. where would you like to see the new super committee focus? caller: of course they have to discuss the debt, reducing the debt, but the main thing we have to do if we want everyone to pay their fair share of taxes, it is completely change the tax code. a flat tax sounds like a good idea, but when you get to the very lower income, you really have a problem. i think what we need to do is have a national consumption tax. that is the only way you will be able to get the money that everyone says you need to get from the wealthy. i think that needs to be done.

also, when it is done, you have to have a mechanism that stops the government from taxing on top of taxes they are ready to put in place. that is all i have to say. next call comes from fort smith, arkansas. caller: think you for having this topic. a lot of people have a one solution answer. there is not really any one solution. it is multifaceted. it is just that of a joint committee in the house and senate, but there is so much

division between the parties. to thema is a way to get down basics. we have multiple duplications of agencies that need to be streamlined. for example, our corporate structure. we have duplications in a costly bureaucracy within medicaid. also within medicare that is administered at the state level. we up tax code issues. -- we have tax code issues. there is more things than i can state concerning this issue. it is not one particular solution. host: think you for calling in. here is a fact box about the new

committee. -- thank you. our next call comes from lee

love and garland, texas. democrats. you are on thin air. caller -- are on the air. caller: i would like to see the committee focused on tax cuts for the rich and eliminate tax breaks for the company's that have ship jobs overseas in give tax breaks to companies in america. also, i want them to leave medicare alone. because of the new health-care law, there is no co pay for medicare. you could use medicare that the government offers you. if they return this back to the state, we're quebec to separate

and unequal. i would like them to look at fraud in the bank and also hedge funds. that is what i think we should do. thank you. eeting ins is fred tweaking i -- put on the facebook page --

holly you are on the line. what would you like to see the super committee focus on? caller: i would like to see them focus on american representation. what about the bank's going against american production? up americanlocking sharecroppers and giving shareholders of unity. our government and that holders have hijacked the third amendment. host: we will leave it there. this is from politico --

next call is from tennessee. dave on the independent line. caller: this whole thing boils down to money, right? i have had the idea for a long time. our c-span networks that we all enjoy so much come from 5% comes from the cable and satellite subscribers. host: isn't that where the funds come from? not 5%. it is approximately a nickel per subscriber is what the cable companies pay currently to c- span. caller: if we took another nickel from every subscriber and set up a c-span/public

elections and pass the constitutional amendment, making it illegal for anybody to make any financial donations to any public office. any candidate for any office must go to the c-span entity like you have all of your different entities, it would be a separate entity. they will have air time to talk to the public in due bills speel. they would submit a form to you guys of the new branch of c- span, and they would use less time. host: let's get to the super committee and what it should focus on. caller: as far as what cuts they will would need to do? i would like to see a balanced

cut, and the balanced tax increase. host: we're going to leave it there. thank you for the suggestions. next call is diane and julien, california. democrat. caller: good morning. i do not know how you cook the last call. in a very nice hair cut look very nice this morning. i want to say happy birthday to the president in chicago. my answer to your question this morning is a deficit reduction in congress for one year. it reevaluation in the budget to the pentagon and for there to be more transparency, which there has not been for a decade. tax reform, and for our colder to get his men together and get

out and get these people of our having brought in medicare, which is costing us taxpayers millions of dollars. tax reform is we need to -- there is one calculation. to have to cut back on spending and bring in revenue. i want to also make a comment about the faa and jobs. these are jobs that were created that were in progress that were making money. all this and they go home. i believe the president should

bring congress and senators back. i do not care what day it is. there are people of their suffering -- about their suffering. he needs to bring them back and pass legislation to get it in order. a couple of emails. lawrence in st. paul, minneapolis. government should not be in cannot be all things to all people. the committee should appeal to constitutional principles based on limiting the role of the federal government and returning more power to the several states. diana in new hampshire. terry is a republican in

louisiana. caller: good morning. what i think they should do is when i started been for social security, they had it where it should not be touched. that was a separate deal that we paid in. i would like for them to bring it back and leave it like it was before and set of paying in and taking out of social security. host: thank you for calling in from the c-span website. this issue is expected to heighten even further when the leading government agency that

measures the nation's employment statistics releases its monthly jobs report tomorrow. shortly after the senate passed a bill on tuesday, president obama spoke about shifting political priority this fall to jobs. during a briefing by democratic leaders, chuck schumer said jobs will not have to play second fiddle to the deficit anymore. a added that we added this -- we welcome this chance to shut the playing field to jobs. this is from "usa today."

jesus is a democrat in connecticut. caller: i have the answer for all united states financial problems. we could have 50 million jobs within two years. we have to tax on 8.4 million

millionaires at 9.5%. then you get full immunity from the tax if they can show us they have created one new american jobs within a year. one job, one year. host: bruce an independent. what would you like to see the joint committee on deficit reduction focus on? caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i would like to have you put on a economist to illustrate the victory entitlement programs. if we continue on the path we're on right now, they will go big growth. -- they will go bankrupt. that is a pact to bankruptcy. we cannot continue. we have to reform those. personally i would like everyone to have a lifelong retirement

account and a lifelong health savings account. the savings account you would pull out periodically as you need it with high deductibles and so forth. if everyone in their own name had a retirement account and a help savings account, we would be in a lot better place. -- and a health savings account. host: lead story in "usa today" --

paul, republican, cleveland ohio. where would you like to see the super committee focus? caller: is it senator coburn? he has a list that will cut nine trillion dollars. i think that would be a great place to start. host: what about on the revenue side? caller: you have to raise revenue somewhere. i am no expert, but i am sure they can put their heads together. i think the simpson/bowls plan had some good revenue start. host: from "wall street journal" --

caller: good morning. i do not think they should have a super committee, because all the other committees they had ended up a mess, and this one will just be a super mess. what they need is for the congressman to get to work. realityt's say it is a

that this committee will go forward and it is constitutional. where would you like to see it focus? caller: the focus is really and truly talks about all the congress in getting back to work and doing their jobs. that is number one. they need to get along and learn how to respect the president. now they talk about all of these gentlemen and gentle lady, intact and not know what it is. then they this respect everyone else. first of all, that is what they need to talk about. maybe we can get the economy on track if they could get their souls on track. happy birthday to president obama. have a happy and blessed birthday. host: think you, nancy. "washington post" -- thank you, nancy.

need to mention the president's birthday. the president spoke at a fund- raiser in chicago on his birthday. c-span coverage that life. o bob burt this celebration campaign speech in chicago. president obama return to chicago last night for a campaign fund-raiser in celebration for his 50th birthday. he was introduced by his former chief of staff, rahm emanuel and spoke to a crowd of 2400 supporters and contributors at the historic error on all routes north of downtown. -- historic eragon algren north

of downtown. caller: i would like to propose a 1% surcharge on stock . rchasess if you do not buy stock, you do not pay the surcharge. also, cut back presidential, a cabinet, and legislative retirement payments by 33 percent sent here get get rid of the capitol police force and put a 20% charge on campaign contributions. host: thank you for calling in. from "the associated press" --

host: next called, modesto, california. tony on the republican line. caller: you cannot do anything until you stop all of the waste in this government. the gravy train needs to be over. all of these people better on various welfare programs, social security, medicare. there are a ton of people that should not be on it. and number two, you had a group, which is the democrats. all they do is blame people and

point fingers. i see the republicans trying to fix things, and they do not like it. the other thing is that those of us that were around when carter was president, when a country has a bad administration and that president, the country does not do good. we put this guy in 2012, and things will get fed up -- better real fast. host: the only so-called entitlement that can be touched would be to providers. that cut would be to providers, not recipients. from "the hill" this morning --

san antonio, texas. to me, a democrat. .- jimm caller: i was a military for 20 years. i was in vietnam, and i love my country. i think that first of all we should bring the guys back from the wars, and those who exit the military, they should be first in line for fixing our infrastructure. second, i think the people elected by the state should be paid by the states. if you elect the person and they're paying them and set of the whole country paying them, it is better, because there are different lifestyles in different states.

third, i love c-span and what you guys to do this. it informs the country and tries to get us on the right path. host: thank you for calling in this morning. from c-span.org. the press conference will be live on c-span.org at 10:30 this morning. greenbelt, south carolina. where would you like to see the super committee focus go? caller: good morning. i would like to agree with the earlier calller, you are pretty

dashing man. all of the elected officials and everyone watching c-span to go to youtube and do a search on the biggest gains in town and read the information presented by a man. thank you, sir. host:burion, what does he have to do with the super committee? caller: he talks about a book called the comprehensive annual financial report. when the citizens of this country view the video, they will have a different perspective on these people coming and talking about america. the biggest game on town is where to look. from "the wall street journal:

-- host: betty in washington, d.c., on the democrat line. caller: i would like to see a of a breakdown of the qualifications of each member that will serve on the super committee, and that also think

they should show us how we got into the debt. host: any particular focus you would like to see the super committee look at? caller: the economy. how our money is being said. where were tax dollars go? -- how our money is being spent. and who is benefiting? host: lead editorial in "the new york times" --

floyd on the republican line. where would you like to see the new super committee focus its attention when it comes to deficit reduction? caller: good morning. i would like to see them focus on jobs, because that is the only way we will get out of this recession. i have two good examples. one of them is i live in virginia, and robert macdonald said this man cannot be on there. the guy in texas has traded almost 40,000 jobs. they say he cannot be president, because they will get together

and have a prayer meeting. in california they had a judge say you cannot do this, this is wrong. now they are shutting the courthouse is down. just look and you can see how to create jobs. >> mike tweets been that the super committee should find ways to sell medicare plans to younger age brackets and allow companies to buy into it and continue to eliminate medicare waste. bill, democrats. you are on c-span. caller: on the tax system one of the problems with the tax system we have is it is so unfair. rich people thatached peopl

do not pay as much taxes, but we do also have people getting back to to three times as much as they are paying income of which means they're not paying anything at all. whenever you have deductions that are higher than what you pay in, you should not get back to and three times the amount of taxes that you pay into this country. whenever you have so much child care deductions and have children, even though you both work, and i understand all this because i have worked construction all my life, only so much should be paid back in a tax deduction. that is just about all i have to say. host: north carolina. ward of the independent line. caller: good morning, peter. i believe i talk to you last time.

it has been such a long time ago, i forgot i thought of a couple of things cents. i listened to you every day, and you have a calller from west virginia who calls and twice a week every week. his name starts with a c. we need a consumption tax. there are a lot of people all here, including myself, who are doing fairly well. i do not mind if we had a consumption tax. oh my goodness. where are we at? a consumption tax that provides revenue, and what was the other part of the question? host: we will leave it there. if you think the super committee should focus on tax reform, and adjusting the way taxes are paid, that is great. thank you for calling in. hope to talk to ken 30 days from

now. this comment on our facebook page. freeze the budget expenses at 2011 levels. six to eight years in the capital at 18.5% of gdp starting in 2018. make the government more efficient. i realize that is highly unlikely. you could continue this conversation on facebook. go to facebook.com/cspan. you can continue the conversation. a couple hundred comments every morning on the question of the day. and now a little bit of international news before we take our last call on the super committee. we will continue the conversation with our guests coming up in just a minute. just quickly some international news. muammar gaddafi sun says a libyan ship may lie with radical rebels. s levels

this is in "the new york times" in case you're interested in reading that article further. scott king writes to fight radical islam, the u.s. once muslim allies. that is the headline. this is one more international article we wanted to share. this is "the washington post" --

again, that is in "the washington post." final call on what the super committee should focus on. bill is a republican in key largo. you are on the air. caller: one thing of like the super convey need not to focus not calling the colleagues terrace. in regards to revenue, one thing the american people need to know is the very people they want to tax are the people with all their money. money they do not have to spend unless they're givien an incentive to spend. without a tax break, they do not have incentives to spend host: think you for calling in. as i mentioned, we will continue this conversation.

we will continue taking your calls on that. that is up next. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> 6, 8, 9. in >> 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. these are the stakes to make a world in which all god's children can live.

we must either love each other or we must die. to go vote for president johnson on november 3. >> this weekend we will look at the history of political campaign ads with robert mann. for speechwriters for president nixon reveal how his messages were crafted and communicated. get the complete we can schedule /history.g a arizona rep gabrielle giffords returned to the house to pass one of the last votes to raise the nation's debt ceiling. >> there is not a name festers more love, more admiration, more

respect, or wishing for our daughters to be like her band the name of congress woman gabby giffords. thank you. [applause] >> watch her return to the house at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> this weekend, john farrell on the life and times of clarence darrow, attorney for the damned. afterwards, amanda foreman on the british citizens who fought for the union and confederates. life, three hours of your calls and questions. -- live, three hours of your calls and questions. look for the complete book tv schedule at book ktv.org. >> this month c-span radio

speech is more of the lbj tapes. the saturday hear conversations between the president, secretary of state, and senate armed some verses committee chair. -- senate armed services committee chair. >> i am trying as hard as i can to get peace in viet nam. for that reason, i am not running. >> listen on satellite channel 119 m live at c-span radio host: we're going to continue our conversation about the new super committee that has been created. v that is in the debt legislation passed earlier this week. we're joined first by john not of the sun lifelich

foundation. also, paul krawzack. have you heard any indications about who the members may or may not be? i have not heard yet. so far the four leaders have not given it any indication of when they will make the appointments or who. host: are you hearing reports about people lobbying for themselves and their friends and etcetera? guest: not right now because most everybody has left. there has happened too much going on. host: has there ever been a committee formed like this before with this jurisdiction and real power? guest: i do not know that there has been a committee by this is that formation, but as we look at the 12 members of congress we have really focus on the fact

that they need to be transparent and accountable and what they decide and how they do it. so this committee that has been created by the new law, there are not really -- there are very few requirements for how they function and whether or not the meetings will be public and whether we know who will be lobbying them and what skills they are drafting and what their work actually looks like. there is a campaign to try to demand that this new super congress or super committee operate in the public view on the internet. host: senator cockburn has stressed that it was much better to have private meetings. burn has stressedu that it would be much better to have private meetings. so farwhat we've seen through the debt negotiations,

starting even in november with this tax cut extension and the budget battle has been a battle that is almost completely secret. we have maybe 14 hours in the case of the latest bill for members of congress to try to understand what has been proposed. that is just not enough time. caller host: we are hearing from a lot of our viewers about the constitutionality. in your view, is a constitutional? caller: i would say yes. i do not see any reason to suggest it is not. the devil is in the details. we will see what specific objections are raised. >host: joining us now is jaime reiskin who does not find a constitutional. is that a correct statement? caller: essentially the way the

committee has been formed looks constitutional, looks the way the other committees have been formed in congress, and it preserves for each individual the right to vote on final passage legislation, which is what the constitution requires. the committee itself cannot do anything without action by the house and senate. they essentially have to vote up or down on everything but the special joint committee does without amendments and delays. i think the constitutional questions that have been raised are not so much about the structure or composition, which does resemble other joint committees that have been fashioned in the past, but rather some of the other requirements about the activation of different proposals that take place. for example, the balanced

budget constitutional amendments, which have to be considered at a certain point and whether in fact congress can ever find a future congress to vote on a constitutional amendment and whether you can make passage of future legislation, which is done by a majority vote, which requires two-thirds vote. that is where the constitutional questions have been raised and some of the more interesting questions are. the fact that the committee has a lot of power and it will be referring legislation for an up or down vote in each house, i think that does pass constitutional muster. host: what does this do to the committee system already in place in the congress? caller: well, i think in a political sense it establishes a precedent that when there is a very difficult set of questions where it is tough for political

consensus to be formed in congress to bite the bullet, to establish one of the super committees to make some very hard choices, and then to send it quickly on a fast-track basis to the full senate for an up or down vote. again, that is a similar self- disciplining mechanism that both chambers have used before in dealing with very hot issues. host: overall, when you look at the structure that has been put in place, how concerned are you about the process? caller: well, you know, in a political sense there are real questions about everything that has taken place. there has not been a full ventilation of opinion in dialogue and discussion within

congress, and there seems to be a kind of self imposition of a set of procedures that cuts off complete dialogue and complete debate. also, at the magic of a democratic system is everyone gets to speak and participate, but then also people get frustrated because things take so long and there is constant back-and-forth and appears to be a stalemate and paralysis. that moves the legislators to create procedures like this. that creates a character frustration cutting off debate -- that creates the counter frustration of cutting off debate. that is a constant dynamic within the american political democracy where we swing back and forth in either direction. so in a substantive sense i can't find a lot of problems in the deal that -- i can't find a lot of problems in the deal that

was created. -- i can find a lot of problems in the deal that was created. but i do not think there is anything in here that is likely to be struck down by the supreme court. host: jain raskin is a law professor at american university. guest: the one thing i find interesting is the question of whether or not occur if congress can find a future congress. we do a lot of looking at the rules of the house. we have proposed 70 changes to the house rules. when the speaker took over, they adopted 12 to make committees more open and make ethics more apparent. i find it interesting that proposals like this would suggest that the house and the future needs to follow what the house of the president did and the law they passed -- of the

president dient did. we need to remember any future house could change its mind. host: are you hearing frustrations and the congress about this committee and its super jurisdictional powers? guest: yes, there is quite a bit of criticism about it. the senator, just sessions, the ranking republican on the senate budget committee has been particularly critical of the committee. he said that ithe way congress should work is that committees debate these issues over and amount of time, and there is an amendment process, and eventually you come up with legislation. you have this committee that has the authority to come up with a plan echoes to the house and

senate had no amendments are allowed. there is quite a bit of concern that this committee has to much power and will be doing what the the whole congress should be doing. host: the headline of that editorial was "hiding behind the budget act." what is the role in this committee? guest: the president does not really have a role in this committee except he was part of negotiating the guidelines for this committee. but he does not have a role -- he certainly will have an influence on the committee's deliberations because he is the president. but he does not appoint anybody

to this committee. it is strictly six house members and six senate members. host: could vice president bidens be appointed to this committee? guest: no. technically, perhaps, but it will not happen. because he is the vice president. he is not a senator. it is hard to see that either it senate majority leader harry reid or mitch mcconnell would appoint the vice president. but it is always possible, but i think very doubtful. host: john wonderlich, when it comes to the appropriations process that we go through sometimes annually and the budget process, those are pretty wide open. would the sunlight foundation agree with that?

guest: not entirely. all forms of accountability -- even defining the bill that they voted on has often taken us -- we have to go to the capital and find the room and say it would you please give us a copy of the bill that you just voted on. that is not that isin 20 -- that is not very transparent in 2011. host: if they do some of the things that the sunlight foundation has argued for including posting online, contributions, etc., does that improve the process that is currently in place? guest: it certainly it legitimizes it -- it certainly legitimizes 8. we are calling for all of the

contacts and any lobbyists with other interests meeting with them to be posted online immediately. if you look at the examples set by the obama administration as they implemented the stimulus and the tarp program and the dodd-frank bill, each of those programs have come with a lobby and exposure policy. we think congress is should do the same thing generally but especially now when these 12 members have been given so much power. host: paul krawzak, is there any doubt that the paul ryans and kent conrads of the world will be appointed to this committee? guest: i think it is an open question. host: is there a chance that they might not be?

guest: there is certainly a chance that they might not be. it could be budget experts like ryan or conrad. it could be eric cantor in the house, for example. host: as somebody who covers capitol hill, what does this system due to the current budget making process in place on capitol hill? guest: one of the main things it does -- a budget resolution is required each year. ideally, they compromise and agree on a single budget resolution. this deems the next two budget resolutions. the house and senate do not have to pass a budget resolution in 2012 or 2013. they may anyway, but they do not

have to because this sets at the discretionary spending cap for those two years and provides the safeguards for a budget resolution. host: our guests -- paul krawzak of cq politics and john wonderlich of the sunlight foundation. we are continuing our talk about the super committee. you can send us a tweet or an fe-mail. first call comes from toledo, ohio. caller: i am calling because i think congress should be able to do their job. they have committees about everything. why do they need other

committees? it just confuses the situation and makes it harder to do their jobs. guest: that is a good point. i think the reason this committee will be formed -- i think is an instance of kicking the can down the road. they were not able to agree on it enough deficit reduction, so they are putting it off and enhance of a committee. it is because they were not able to come to an agreement. host: hi, rob, on our independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i think the key to this is going to be the competition of the committee. if they put a bunch of the establishment politicians on the committee, they will kick the can down the road.

especially the republicans. the republicans have to put some of these new people in to change the dialogue from up in the debt ceiling to actually talking about some reductions. that is the key, i think. host: any response for the caller? guest: it is hard to imagine what leadership is going to look like, so we are looking closely and wondering whether paul ryan is going to be there or not and what of the makeup is going to look like. we are just hoping they will choose people that will be open about what they are doing. host: o next call as we continue our discussion -- florida, sue is on our republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one, i don't believe this

committee is constitutional. the reason is the voters put the talf in a majority where the bills are created in order to balance out this government. i think we have given up this balance by making this committee equal. my second point is i believe our government was formed to operate from the middle. when the administration and at the senate blamed so far left, i believe that was why the tea party had to come into existence to balance the government again. perhaps it is not supposed to get much done or little done unless this government moves to the middle again. thank you for my called. guest: i would say the house has

tied its hands and has said it will vote on anything that comes out of the committee. it was the house's choice to bind itself to this. host: you covered capitol hill for quite a while. is this similar to the base closing commissions? guest: it is similar but different. they make a recommendation, and congress can vote it down but can't change it. this committee will come up with a deficit reduction bill, and congress will not be able to amend it. they will be able to approve it or not approve it, so it is similar in that sense. in connection with this

committee, also is kicking the can down the road, there is an enforcement mechanism here. if it comes up with one but congress does not pass it, then there will be automatic spending cuts across the board through out of defense and domestic spending. equaling $1.20 trillion. so there is a great incentive for this committee to come up with a package and for congress to pass 8. host: are there any limitations on what this committee could consider? guest: there are not limitations. they could propose an overhaul of the tax system. it is hard to believe that they would have enough time to do that. but they can propose cuts to entitlement programs, defense

spending, discretionary spending. they could close tax credits and deductions. they could possibly even to a tax overhaul, so no limitations. host: this tweet has come in. guest: i would say we have been frustrated watching all throughout -- it is like 1995 every three months in washington for the last year. we have a game of chicken rapidly approaching dire consequences. it is been really frustrating the way our leadership confronts those things, which is to exclude the public from the debate. all three of them have basically said the appropriate response is to proceed and negotiate

privately. that is what we will continue to get until we stand up and expect more from our leaders. the sun life foundation is a non-profit dedicated to creating more transparent government. host: kate, democrat, good morning. caller: of the american public has great ideas. also, clearly, our reps are not listening to us. 70% of the american public say raise taxes on the wealthy. and to close tax loopholes. clearly, they are not listening to the american public. thank you so much for the sunlight foundation. if people call our representatives and now or these members of the committee, can we demand that we have access to

the lobbyists that they are meeting with so we find out what is going on? you can listen all morning to suspend. the american public has great ideas, but they are not listening to us. they are listening to the lobbyists. thank you. host: thank you for your call. and the comment for her? guest: transparency is a great thing. you had mentioned that senator cockburn had concerns-- senator coburn had concerns about a public forum. the advantage of having meetings out in the open is that the public can see everything that is being discussed, and second be an educational process in itself. that gprovides an opportunity

for the public to become aware of the different arguments and issues. that could provide a public service as well. host: here was senator co burn talking about the gang of six. >> you cannot negotiate these things in the press. it is difficult to take somebody who is at the ends of the spectrum and make hard decisions and compromises if you are doing it in the public like it because anybody that is against what you are doing is going to be critical of 8. we are not there yet. in the, and is -- host: john wonderlich. guest: i think it is ok for the

gang of six to meet in private and come up with a proposal that everyone might agree with. i think that is appropriate. when we have 12 members of congress that have a direct route to the floor of both chambers and whatever they decide has to be voted on, i think that is a different standard. i think we need openness. it is their responsibility. it is something that we need to demand. host: steve is a republican in florida. caller: good morning, gentlemen. this is just a power grab in a sense. why can they just take 3% from social security, 3% from the military, 3% from all federal employees and state employees, and make the cut across the board? nobody gets hurt or crushed.

we could pay a lot of our national debt and resolve a lot of problems. it is a great start. thank you, gentlemen. guest: that is certainly a valid approach. congress has chosen to zero in on specific areas where it thinks cutting can most effectively be done rather than doing an across-the-board hair cut. that would make things easier but it has not been seriously considered in the past in this debate. host: michael johnson tweets in -- guest: that would be very interesting. host: would it be a first? guest: it would be a first.

guest: if there are two people, you cut, the other person choooses. host: whose idea was it to create the super committee? guest: it originally came from harry reid. this was during negotiations between congressional leaders and president. actually, it started with mitch mcconnell, and up with a fallback plan for raising the debt ceiling if congressional leaders could not reach an agreement. then he started working with harry reid on. harry reid came up with the idea on creating a committee which evolved into what we have in this legislation. host: harry reid spoke on saturday. >> a 12-member commission on a deficit-reduction efforts in this year will be a key to that

effort. i say to my friend that i appreciate his or wrapping his arms around this and being a cheerleader for this idea. it is an idea that congress -- it would be a joint committee that would move forward. there would be a trigger. if they did not resolve this, then something else would happen. based on past experiences, i think there will be a tremendous incentive to not allow that to happen. host: john wonderlich, is this an abdication of congress's responsibility to create a budget? guest: i see it as a them of trying to take something seriously. it is like sticking with a diet. there is nothing that forces you to follow a trigger.

it is congress saying we are going to take it seriously. there is so much smoke and mirrors involved. it is one player after another to try to spread out political -- it is one layer after another to try to spread out political responsibility. guest: the committee will hire staff and have two co-chairmen appointed by the committee. actually, i think one is appointed by john boehner and the other by harry reid. but it will hire staff and pay its staff. it is laid out in the law. id is not clear how many staff members they will have. host: 12 members, six appointed by the house and senate.

that needs to be done by august 16. the cochairs are picked by representative john boehner and senator harry reid. congress has to act on their recommendations by december 23. there can be input up and through october 14 by other committees, other congressional committees. buford, ga., brenda is a democrat. caller: i do not believe that this subcommittee will agree to anything because congress is just broken. it is very discouraging to see representatives in congress who do not want to meet each other halfway and compromise. we as americans deserve so much

more than what we are receiving from congress right now. i just want to say that -- people, wake up. we cannot elect republicans. we are going down as a country. all of us are suffering. thank you. host: any comments for her? guest: i believe that we need more. it is amazing how you walk through how this would work, reflecting that congressional committees are used to providing advice to a group of 12 members of congress. is unfortunate that we have ended up in this place -- it is unfortunate that we have ended up in this place. >> we have not made any decisions, but i am sure we will continue to have conversations

about our appointments to the committee. host: you are on the air, michelle. caller: as long as the super committee is working, the rest of congress should be laid off. they should not be called back until they have reached their determination to have a vote. their salaries should be applied toward the national debt. if they cannot work together, we should not pay them. guest: they have a lot to do such work on the budget. so, i think it will be back in september and will be busy. but, i mean, this bill did represent republicans and democrats from both chambers coming to get their. they put together this deficit reduction plan and this committee, and the goal is to cut more than $2 trillion from

the deficit over the next 10 years. that is not a lot. the national debt is projected to go up by about $10 trillion over the next 10 years. so cutting $2 trillion from that would be a small part of that, but it is a start. i think this represents some progress. host: are you hearing from members of congress that this is our process? guest: yes. there is concern and criticism. it is understood, but i expect this committee will do its work, this law will go forward, and we will see what happens. host: have you found any loopholes that would allow this committee to increase spending? guest: no, i have not seen any.

there is always the possibility of loopholes and different ways of interpreting things. i would be surprised if there were not some. but i don't see how the committee would increase spending. is to reduce the deficit. you can do that by increasing revenues, too. host: john wonderlich, does the sunlight foundation taken a position on whether or not this committee does not come to an agreement and of the automatic cuts go into effect? or if the congress votes down what the committee has decided. guest: the only kind of work on

budget spending that we have done in the spring -- it was proposed to cut 95% of the budget to pay for the website where we can track how the government is spending money. we sounded the alarm and started a campaign to say if you are going to cut money, let's not cut the one program to let us see where we are spending money. that is the only kind of spending that we've are aactive on. host: good morning, william. caller: i think they should focus on across-the-board. i think they could use some welfare reform. i heard about mandatory drug

testing on welfare recipients. i am more partial about the veterans. $4.30 billion cut for the veterans involving health-care. i think they need to leave the veterans alone because we sacrifice a lot for this country. if it were not for the veterans, all the way up until now with afghanistan, if it were not for them, we would not have all of this free enterprise and big corporations making all of their money. host: this comment in from gary -- last call on thi;s topic of the super committee, virginia beach,

va., david is a democrat. caller: good morning. thanks for the called. -- for the call. i kind of think they are tripping all over their shoestrings of trying to run the country. i can appreciate them wanting to have a 12-member or 12 disciples, but there is always one that does not get it. they are going to take him out. so, i think, you know, they are in the dark trying to kick the can. but it is obvious that we have an issue in this country. the banks are seeing the writing on the wall. they are running like crazy. i am in line with the gentlem think johnthinki

wonderlich. the transparency will help tremendously even if they are behind closed doors. if there is a way to get a clear picture of where we are now, where we came from, and where we are trying to go -- i have been trying to develop that tool for years, running my own company to be able to see where you are and where you are going. it would help tremendously. i will probably try to get in touch with you. i can show you how we can put everything in order in realtime, accountability, transparency, no fluff, and make decisions. host: mr. john wonderlich. guest: everything that we do -- it is only meaningful if we are

able to vote on what we understand. if we cannot understand what they are talking about, quoting becomes almost a meaningless act. host: has congressional leadership left town as well? guest: msoost of it has. i am not sure if every congressional leader is gone, but most of them are. host: do you think we will hear announcements before august 16? guest: you know, it's not clear if they are going to wait until they make their appointments and announce it together or individually. it is not clear when they will. mitch mcconnell has said he will make the announcement soon, but it is not clear what soon means.

it could be a week or more than that. by august 16. host: our guests have been paul krawzak and john wonderlich. gentlemen, thank you very much. we are going to turn our attention next to whether or not the nation is headed toward a double-dip recession. he cover of this week's "business week," "why the debt crisis is even worse than you think." peter coy will be joining us in a minute. after that, we will be talking about the famine in africa. >> treasury figures released yesterday show the u.s. debt reached 100% of gdp after the government debt ceiling was lifted.

the last time the u.s. debt was greater than the annual economy was in 1947 during world war two. the new u.s. debt now stands at $14.58 trillion. more economic news from general motors, the company reporting that its second quarter profit nearly doubled to $2.5 billion. it was the company's sixth straight quarterly profit. in afghanistan, nato says it two service members and died today in separate attacks. c-span is covering a briefing from the country this morning. you could hear it later on c- span radio. those are some of the latest headlines. >> the supreme court is now available as an ebook. 11 original c-span interviews

with current and retired justices. it includes an interview elena kagan. available now wherever ebooks are sold. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal." weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house, and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forum's. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org, and it is all searchable. c-span, washington your way.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: peter coy from of bloomberg "business week," the economics editor, joins us. all of the economics news in this morning's paper is not positive. is the u.s. poised to go back into a recession in your view? guest: i would say there is a good chance -- i do not want to put a percentage on it. president reagan's chief economic adviser told bloomberg television yesterday that he sees about a 50/50 chance of a recession. most of the economists put the

number slightly lower, but if you look at the numbers lately, most of them are pretty bearish. look at the gdp growth over the last two quarters. look at the factory index, dipping almost into confectionery range. consumer confidence being at recession levels. the bloomberg consumer comfort index is at a level that is normally associated with recessions. many arrows are pointing downward. host: we have been talking about this new super committee that will be making supposedly $1.20 trillion in spending cuts by november-december. what is going to be the effect of that type of spending? is it going to be a good effect

or not? guest: in the long term, it is essential to shrink the budget deficit. that is the topic of my cover story. i was talking about that long run projection. if you trace out spending and revenue over the rest of this century and into the next, you see that the numbers of diverge unhealthy way.h an economist from boston university estimates that the long-term fiscal gap is $211 trillion, just staggering. in the long term, it is essential to shrink the deficit. the problem is that if you

aggressively shrink it in the short term, you could actually throttled the economic recovery which would leave us in a japan-like situation in which we cannot get the growth that is needed to shrink the ratio of debt to gdp. what matters is not just a level of debt by the ability of the economy to support that debt. if the economy is shrinking, even if the debt does not go up, it becomes more and more burdensome. it is essential to get growth going again. these latest numbers point in the wrong direction. it is exactly what nobody wants. so what we want to do is find a way to get growth going, at least staving off another recession. that might require holding off

on the immediate deficit reduction, postponing it a year or so until the economy can get back on its feet. host: i want to go through to article in little bit. "it gets worse" is the title. you write -- guest: yeah. so, the fiscal gap is a concept that the congressional budget

office uses as a supplement. what that does is look forward, not only what obligations we have already incurred as a nation, but what obligations we are on track to incur if we continue on the path that we are on. for example, current law says the bush tax cuts will expire. if it does an alternative fiscal scenario which is probably more realistic. in the alternative fiscal scenario, you see that the gap between debt and gdp -- between revenue and spending is a little bit over 8% of gdp in newly. over the next 75 years. that means that are spending

will exceed revenues by 8% of gdp. over the next decade, that is in the range of $15 trillion. much bigger than that over a 75- year period. it shows you the magnitude of the problem that we face and of the bargain that was tried to be struck a few weeks ago. host: you write that that is why -- mr. coy, we just got the monthly unemployment figures. i went to get your reaction to this. of the number of people seeking unemployment benefits dipped last week, a sign that the job market may be improving slowly. the labor department says

applications for unemployment benefits edged down 1000 to 400,000, the lowest level in four months. the previous week's figure was revised upward to 401,000. what is your reaction to those numbers? guest: of course, those are the weekly claims numbers. the important number will be the one coming out tomorrow. that is more reliable. we will be watching it more closely. the weekly claims numbers are quite volatile. so you do pay attention to them. it sounds like good news, but i would not get too jubilant about it until tomorrow. host: one more area from your article before we start taking

some calls on the economy, the national debt itself is on one such squishy concept. host: why not? guest: do you want me to answer the question? i will try to answer it.

remember, there are two debt numbers. the one i quoted in that article includes the social security trust fund and other government obligations. the debt held by the public is a $10 trillion number and in some ways is the one with the rubber meets the road because that is money that is legally binding on the government to pay back to creditors whether they are americans, chinese, or saudis. that number does not include our future obligations to social security retirees, medicare, and so on. the $14 trillion includes the trust fund, so it starts to incorporate a view of what obligations we are incurring toward the long-term future.

host: peter coy is our guest, the economics editor of bloomberg "businessweek. the first call comes from punta gorda, fla.. caller: i would like to know why businesses are not hiring and why like this grover norquist can have such a hold on the republican party for not raising taxes on the wealthy and stuff like that. i think that -- why are they not checking out some of this? i know that schools down here are holding back their money from spending it. i would like to know why businesses are not hiring. guest: well, i have another article in the forthcoming issue

of "business week," that will be out tonight. the article i wrote is already available on the web site. host: we have a copy of it right here and we are showing it. guest: there you go. that article talks about -- it tries to answer the woman's question. when the economy slows down to the point it has -- we had only 4% growth in the first quarter and 1.3% annual growth in the second quarter. businesses start to say to themselves i was investing in some new equipment and hiring people on the expectation that demand was coming back, but maybe i should put a hold on that and we did little bit before i add some staff that i

might need to lay off in a few months if things turned down again. that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. that person is not hired an cannot spend. some other business does not get the money. you can see how these things feed on themselves. economies are unstable that way. now, my article likens it to a rocket. it can either have enough thrust to escaped eath's gravitational pull, or if it does not have enough thrust, it can slow down, slow down, and then tumble back to earth. the question now for the economy, which is a concern to every one of us, ordinary americans, is whether we have enough thrust in the economy to escape the gravitational tug or

whether we are headed for another recession. host: you write in your new article -- in other words, some economists say if the economy grows too weakly, the slowdown could lead to a recession. maybe investors lose faith in the recovery so stock prices are already down 9%. any such reaction could cause the very downturn that is feared. north carolina, marsha, on the air with peter coy. caller: yes, i would like to ask -- host: we are listening.

caller: i would like to ask why is it that businesses here in the united states have not learned from the old adage-you have to spend money to make money. we all grew up in an era that in order to make money, you had to invest. if you do not invest in yourself, you are not going to make a lot of money. i do not understand. host: mr. coy? guest: put yourself in the position of the business owner. you grow by sacrifice, hard work, investing for the future.

on the other hand, maybe not is now the ideal time to take out a loan. what happens if you cannot pay back that loan? you may want to hold your cash a little bit and wait for the storm to blow over. you want to time it. the most important priority for any business is survival. they are going to put that ahead of making extra profit. so i think that is what is going on in a lot of the heads of business people right now. when everybody does that, it creates what john maynard keynes said it was the paradox of thrift. one person spending is another person's receipt. you cannot save out of that in become so things cannot appeared

magically out of nowhere. we are in danger of toppling into that paradox. host: i want to get your reaction on what president obama said yesterday. >> the american people have been continuing to worry about the underlying state of the economy, about jobs, about their wages, reduced hours, about fewer customers. of the economy is still in weekend -- the economy is still weakened, partly because of things that we could not control. unfortunately, the debt ceiling crisis over the last month i think has had the necessary- impact on the economy here as well. i am meeting with my cabinet to make sure even as they have

been thrown out these weeks are redoubling their efforts to focus on what matters to the american people which is how we are going to put people back to work, increased security, how we can make sure they will recover fully from the worst recession we have had since the great depression. guest: yes, i think that democrats and republicans alike can agree that getting people back to work should be the top priority right now. the problem is how to get their. the parties are deeply split over that. obama did not say it, but the democratic line has been that we need more stimulus, more priming of the pump to get things going again. the republican line, especially from the tea party, is that all kinds of people, households,

businesses, creditors are mostly concerned about the fiscal well- being of the country over the long term, and the way to get confidence back it is to show that we can bring deficits under control. you can see how those two alternate series lead us in the alternate directions. obama can not put through and find the political support for any new kind of stimulus. so when people look around -- going back to businesses again, things are not great now, so what is going to change? it is hard to latch onto anything and say here is the new thing that is going to make us all feel better and get in the mood for spending, investing, and expanding. " larry is a republican in virginia -- host: larry is a

republican in virginia. caller: thank you very much. of the cold war ended years ago. instead of investing in other nations, would it is not be a better thing to bring those troops home and reinvest that money back into this nation? i think it would help businesses and housing industry. guest: yeah, there is no question at all that the deployment of troops abroad and a massive spending in the military on iraq and afghanistan and our ongoing military procurement budget is a big drag on the economy. if we did not have that, we would have more money available for other purchases. the roman empire can tell you all about that. even though there is a consensus between the parties

that some of the savings, a big portion, is going to have to come out of the military -- i was amazed that half of the cuts under the $1.20 trillion trigger plan that is being discussed are from defense. the pentagon is coming back and saying these are too draconian for us. the caller is definitely in tune with the latest thinking in washington about what to do with defense. host: you write in your cover article --

host: do you want to expand on what you wrote? guest: i can imagine that the lightning rod in the whole paragraph is the last phrase about applying in part to current beneficiaries. sold the lights are probably lighting up with retirees -- so, the lights are probably lighting up with retirees who want my head. the reaction i got on that from pittingple is that i'm the generations against each other. i do not want to do that. when you look at the size of the

problem, you have to think that a lot of money going to not just future beneficiaries but to current beneficiaries -- if we hold that generation harmless, that increases the burden on the younger people, the working people, and people who are not even working like children. we have a big problem with youth poverty in this country. in an ideal world, nobody wants to shrink the benefits of medicare and social security, but nobody wants to cut the support for younger people either. something's got to give. the question is whether retirees should bear at least a bit of the pain. before the calls start coming in, i will throw in one other

point. i think it is even more important that the wealthy and share more of the burden with the poor. it is true that the wealthy already pay a lion's share of income taxes in this country, so you can say that they are already doing their part. on the other hand, there is a concentration of wealth in the top tier of the population. the top 1% or something has a third of the wealth. i could have those numbers wrong. the concentration has grown. it is hard for the wealthy to argue that they have been harmed by the economy. maybe they should share with the rest of the public which would make it easier to help both the older and younger generations. host: peter coy has been with

bloomberg since 1989 and is currently the economics editor of bloomberg "businessweek." wilmington, delaware, liz is on our democrats lined. caller: good morning. a question is in regard to grover norquist. there are only six people in the house and the seven in the senate that have not taken that pledge. this man has been atrocious for the american people. why they have taken this pledge -- the only pledged they should be taking is a pledge to the american people and this democracy. i want to see every one of those republicans to tear off that pledge. i like to see mr. john boehner and mr. mitchell mcconnell pick only people who have not taken the pledge. otherwise, this super committee -- this should not be called a

super congress. we have a congress. call them a "super committee ." guest: i tend to be against people tying their hands behind their back because it makes them unable to respond to circumstances as they change. host: jim is on our republican line. caller: peter, you mentioned something about sharing the burden. i go home every night and turn on the news and see people of congress getting out of their limousines. for me, i am still getting a $9 hair cut bank i drive a pretty nice van. i am becoming the one with the draconian policies. i manage a quizno's. these punk kids come in and

expect a free bigger chips. host: pittsburgh, pa.. i apologize for that caller. tom, are you with us? caller: ok, yes, i think we have been enjoying a false prosperity for maybe a couple decades. i suggest that we suspend the minimum wage, suspend the prevailing wage, and the mos regulations that keep business out of making something -- of adding god you to something. we have to reduce our expectations because we have been overcompensated for our work. guest: you know, that is a

really interesting point out that the caller makes. let's focus on one aspect. the minimum wage. in a completely unregulated economy, what happens is that businesses are not willing to pay as much for an hour of work because it is not worth it to them. the way that the market should adjust is by people taking lower wages. we will still be able to have a full employment. that is the theor guest it seems ty. it seems to be more complicated than that. economists have looked at the

impact of minimum wages. it is hard to say why, but it does appear that the existence of the minimum wage does not have a huge impact on unemployment overall. it certainly affects the least skilled -- for example, teenagers are more likely to be unemployed in places that have higher minimum wages. but i would not -- i can definitely see the document that there should be a sub-minimum wage for that population. i don't think at lowering the minimum wage overall would have a huge effect on overall unemployment. i think what you want to put this on, rather than the supply side here, is getting to man the going again. if we all start -- is getting demand going again. if we all start spending and investing for the future, we can grow our way out of this instead of spending less and less money

and hoping that will solve the problem. host: back to your cover story in "bloomberg businessweek" -- all the americans have the clout to vote themselves benefits peter coy? guest: the last thing about the benefits can never be repeated -- you know what a ponzi scheme is, right? upon the scheme is where the first people who started get paid -- a ponzi scheme is where the first people who started it paid by the people after that, and the second gets paid by the people after them. it has to be a pyramid, because the next generation has to be bigger to support the ones before them. mathematically, it has to run out, because the population is five. at some point, you run out of new people to bring -- the

population is finite. at some point, you run out of new people to ponzi schemes are illegal. the economy itself is sort of a ponzi scheme in that young people pay taxes that go to benefits for the older people. it works very nicely as long as you have a high birth rate and a high death rate so that you're older generation is shrinking relative -- younger generation. what we have now -- it is a wonderful thing -- people are living longer. we should be happy about it, but we also have a smaller birthrate. the pyramid is misshapen in a way that makes it very difficult to support those benefits for older people. what you start to think of is that children of today and their

children as yet unborn simply on going to be able to get benefits as attractive as the one current beneficiaries are receiving. the only real question is when you start changing the formula of social security and medicare to right that balanced a little bit. host: peter coy, how worried, or do you worry about the u.s. bond rating going from aaa to potentially aa? guest: i would say it is likely to happen at this stage. if you look at the actual quality of u.s. credit, it probably should have happened already. aa is not a bad rating. it is higher than the vast majority of private countries in -- private companies in this country. there is no reason that should have a huge impact on interest rates, because, after all, the credit rating agencies -- standard and poor's, moody's, and fitch -- would simply be

ratified with the investing public already understands, which is that the u.s. is no longer perfect credit. it is more ratification that any piece of news -- than a new piece of news. it might not have much impact in contrast to what would happen if we defaulted this month, which would have been a true disaster. host: a tweet in to you. guest: that's a good question. japan's recovery has barely been worthy of the name "recovery." they had an economy that sort through the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. the japanese miracle, which peaked around january 1, 1990,

the time japanese real estate was the most expensive in the world. the japanese were buying rockefeller center, pebble beach golf course. it seemed like an unstoppable juggernaut. but it turned out that it was partly a real estate bubble. does that sound familiar? now we are seeing the same thing here. the japanese struggle for the past two decades. they called it lost decade. now it is like a lost two decades. country cannot get out of its extended slump for a meaningful period of time. the risk is that the u.s. goes the same way and what we saw in japan is that they would start to grow and people would say now is the time to cut back, raise interest rates, cut spending. they would do that and cut short the recovery. we run the same risk here. while we should be concerned about fiscal solvency in the

long run, if we do it too soon, we could trap ourselves into this malaise that does not ever seem to end. we just got out of recession that began in december 2007 and lasted until june 2009. a lot of americans think we never really got out of the recession. we technically did, and now looks like we might be heading back into one. what is it going to take to get long-term, sustainable, healthy growth? host: john in chicago, you are on the air. caller: good morning. the thing is, i just have an idea about the economy, people going back to work. ok, now a thing of it is, i believe that every state should be responsible for manufacturing. every state built manufacturing,

that they would be the co-owner of manufacturing, people would go back to work and they would have houses, cars, and the economy would start moving again. host: what do you think of buy america programs, mr. coy? guest: well, the caller is asking specifically about states being responsible for manufacturing. that is not a function of state government, it is a function of private industry making those decisions. every state as an economic development agency that would love more factories, and some have been successful. mississippi, south carolina, alabama -- i could list many more that have done a pretty good job of bringing in manufacturing in recent years, and it is a huge benefit. to some degree, is a zero sum game. if a company decides where to locate, it will go where the

most attractive incentives are being offered. on the macro level, national level, we need to create conditions so that the country as a whole becomes attractive for new factories and so is not just everybody grabbing for the few companies that want to locate a factory. i agree with the color bang's point that more manufacturing in this country would be -- the caller's point that more manufacturing in this country would be a good thing. we would be bringing in income from the rest of the world instead of just sharing it with ourselves. host: a twitter follower -- guest: germany did something even before 2008, which is to get its costs in line, to get its economy more competitive. you know, when west and east germany unified, the western

portion of the country had to bring up the eastern portion, and that was a struggle. and then when at the euro form, germany had another struggle, because it's torchmark entered the euro -- its deutschemark entered the eurozone in an almost on a competitive level. add to buckle down and get serious and will align -- it had to buckle down and get serious and hold the line. countries like greece were laggards. they did not take seriously the need to be competitive. they were happily accepting the low interest rates they receive as part of that euro zone and invested unwisely. germy deserves a lot of credit for doing all the right things to make -- germany deserves a lot of credit for doing all the right things to make its economy more competitive.

right now it has the thankless job of having to bail out the rest of the euro zone by fiscal transfers from it to the poorer countries. host: peter coy is our guest. we have five minutes left with him. columbus, ohio. matt, you are on the air. caller: i wanted to take the discussion back to the national level and the wars. i am a republican, i have always voted republican, and i chaired the republican party on my school campus. but what people tell me across the board is that people are tired of these wars. what is the money we spend on these wars each week? if we could take that money and put it back to paying out of visits -- therpaying our deficits -- there has got to be something done about these wars. people are tired of it.

host: mr. coy, have you looked of the numbers -- go ahead. guest: i think there are a lot of republicans who agree with this caller. the tea party in particular, as we know, tends to lean towards the isolationist side. people like rand paul, for example, ron paul. that strain is having a big influence on the republican party. you are seeing a historic change in the alignment of the parties. i would say that is a big reason why the budget deal calls for big cuts. it is because it lost its biggest supporter, which is the unalloyed support of the republican party. both parties are looking at defense spending and saying it

may be that is a good target. host: mr. coy, do you think that the super committee, looking ahead, will be able to agree on substantial cuts? guest: it's going to be absolutely fascinating, because on the one hand -- i think you discussed this in your last segment -- there is going to be a lot of pressure on the leadership of the house and senate, both sides, to pick people who are purists g democrats will want people on the liberal side, republicans will want people on the conservative side, making it a bipolar organization. all it takes is one of defection from either side to tip the balance to the other. if you are a democrat and you are putting in six people here, you don't want to put anybody who seems squishy to you. if that person sites with

republicans, you have lost. it is going to be more polarized than congress as a whole. that speaks to the argument that there is not going to be ideal -- a deal. the counter argument is that if they cannot get a deal, the alternative is the mandatory cuts that are pretty attractive to both parties. furthermore, obama for once has the upper hand because he can simply tell the republicans if you don't do a deal with me, i am going to veto all or part of the bush tax cut extension. in this town, it was the republicans who had the upper hand because they could force the debt ceiling to be invoked and force it to fall on the u.s. -- force a default on the u.s.

this time democrats have the upper hand because of the impending expiration of bush tax cuts. host: you are on with peter coy of "bloomberg businessweek." caller: i think the recession right now despis by design. if you look at what the president said when he was elected, he said he wanted to fundamentally transform america. if you fundamentally transform it, you will go to socialism. they said that the way that you destroy capitalism and institute marxist socialism is to overwhelm the system. get more people on government programs, tax people that are productive, you get more people not paying taxes. thereby, overwhelming the system. you cross capitalism to crash, and that socialism and the institute -- and then a socialism can be instituted. i believe he is a hard-core marxist.

peter, maybe you could run a program and educate the people on exactly what these people -- date they are still around. they are teaching at colleges. host: peter clark, anything for the last caller? guest: no, i don't think it is correct. i don't think you can look at what obama has been doing the past two years and conclude he is trying to destroy capitalism. everybody is entitled to their opinion. host: peter coley o -- peter coy of "bloomberg businessweek" has been our guest. the new magazine is out as well, and he previewed the article for us. thank you so much for being our guest the last 45 minutes. guest: yeah, i really enjoyed it. thanks for having me on. good questions. host: we are going to turn our attention to somalia after this news update from c-span radio.

>> jobless numbers this hour show the number of people seeking an unemployment benefits dipped last week. applications edged down 1000 to a seasonally adjusted 400,000. that is the lowest level in four months, and a sign that the job market may be improving slowly. an update on the americans held in iran on espionage charges. a senior diplomat says he expects that two men will be released very soon. the ambassador to iraq says he does not know exactly when, but there is a genteral feeling in tehran that they will be released during ramadan. the university of tennessee bookstore has stopped selling breath mints that satirize president obama. it is labeled "disappointment."

a state representative visited the store and saw them and complained that he considered them offensive. the bookstores said there was no offense intended and that previously they at carried mints satirizing president george w. bush. >> 7, 8, 9 -- >> 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. >> these are the stakes. to make a world in which all of got's children can live, or to go into the dark. we must either love each other or we must die. >> vote for president johnson on november 3. >> this weekend, we will look at

the history of political campaign ads with an lsu professor, and a former homicide detective on at the day that jack ruby killed a man under his protection, the harvey oswald. as speechwriters for richard nixon on how the messages were crafted and communicate. following a series of tweets -- the capitol looks pitiful plight and tune into c-span and now -- beautiful tonight and turn into c-span and now -- dicaprio giffords returned at to vote on the debt ceiling. >> there is no one with more respect, no wishing for our daughters to be like heard and congresswoman gabby giffords.

thank you, gabby. >> watch her return online at the c-span video library. washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: vincent cochetel is the regional representative for the united nations high commissioner for refugees. mr. cochetel, the famine in somalia -- is this new or something that is just getting reported? how did we get to the point that we are at now? guest: thank you for having me. well, it is not new but it is one of these predictable famines. there were indications in the beginning of the year that the rain was not sufficient in that part of the world -- not just somalia, but djibouti, kenya. we had the famine in 1992.

1998, 1999, 2000. what is important to see is that the famine stops at the border with somalia. in other countries affected by the drought, people are not dying. host: why? guest: because in somalia we have a conflict, we don't just aly fm an-- not just only famine. fighting for control of the markets, the routes. the affected population cannot get access to supplies. host: when did the fighting start? guest: in long time ago in 1999. since then, the country has been divided. we had different regimes succeeding each other. recently, there has been fighting around at the mogadishu area, with a transitional national government is fighting.

host: now, what is the situation in mogadishu? is aid getting at least to mogadishu and not being distributed, or is a did not even reaching the somalia at this point? guest: no, aid is reaching mogadishu, but mogadishu is a small part of the country. only people who can get access to the area controlled by the transitional national government, protected by peacekeeping force there, limited peacekeeping force there, the people can get into an indoor area control. but it is a tiny portion of the territory, only 5% of the territory up somalia. host: once it gets to mogadishu, what happens to it? guest: we have local community- based organizations, directly buy control of making sure hte the aid reaches the right people.

outside the area's control, it is more difficult. host: why? guest: because you cannot bring a lot of supplies there. there are logistical issues, and there is always a risk that it can attract attention, being manipulated by some of the armed groups around. the distribution outside this area controlled by the transitional national government has to be done on a low scale, using a community-based organizations. past be quite discreet. -- it has to be quite discreet. host: for safety reasons? guest: for safety reasons. there are many other partners involved in relief activities in somalia. internationals working there. they our exposing themselves to danger. if you take 2008, 2009, 42 aid workers killed in somalia.

you risk your life just working for a humanitarian organization. host: is this purposeful famine? is there enough food on the ground in somalia or available to get to somalia quickly? guest: at this stage there is not enough food to feed all the people. because of the distribution problems, unfortunately, we will not be able to reach everybody in a matter that is transparent, in a way where we are making sure all the affected population receives 2. 8 is very difficult at this stage to reach out all the people in need. is there enough food in the country? no, there is not enough food in the country. more food items and non-food items are brought into the country. host: according to the un high commissioner's office, at the office you work for, 3.7 million people in somalia are in crisis

out of a population of 7.5 million. 3.2 million are in need of life saving assistance. this the worst drought in somalia in 60 years. what about the designation of certain tribes or certain groups as terrorist groups that affect aid distribution? guest: it certainly affects distribution in the sense that one group, al-shabbab, is in control of the largest portion of somalia and there is no way we can work with those people. we hope they will let humanitarian aid workers reach the population at any, al- shabab has made various statements in recent days and weeks and banning certain organizations, putting conditions on certain organizations, accusing organizations that we wanted to lure people with food assistance in order to convert them to christianity. our job is an impartial

humanitarian work. we try to save lives with other organizations. that is what we want to achieve in somalia and the sort of message we pass in different communities in somalia. host: acute malnutrition rates, children exceeding 30%. those are the three criteria for declaring famine, correct? guest: correct. host: are there other areas in the world currently in famine conditions? guest: no. host: just this area? guest: just this area. others are suffering from drought and access to food, but it has not reached a state of famine. host: we are talking about

famine in somalia and what can be done about it. our guest is vincent cochetel of the u.n. high commissioner for refugees office. you can also send a tweet, twitter.com/cspanwj, or an email, journal@c-span.org. where the refugees going? guest: mainly to 40 countries. kenya elmont, we are -- kenya at 50,000 people 5 coming since the beginning of the year. host: are people getting an offer nutrition?

. -- enough nutrition? guest: ngo's are doing their best to save lives when people arrive in kenya from ethiopia. we have problems in terms of registration, creating -- [unintelligible] the response is satisfactory in can and ethiopia. the government is concerned for its own security -- save for for ethiopia.aame on the 14th of july, the prime minister of the kenyan government agreed to an extension of the largest refugee camp in the world. it has reached more than 400,000 people living there. it was opened 20 years ago, designed for something like 80,000 people. we now have 400,000 people. host: what is the u.n. high

commissioner for refugees office? guest: the u.n. high commissioner for refugees office was a u.n. organization created after the second world war i in order to protect refugees. this way, refugees unable to return to eastern europe, displaced because of the war -- the united nations decided to create it with a limited mandate of the three years initially. host: at it is still in existence today. in 2008, the u.s. was the top donor for the u.n. high commissioner's office, with $510 million donation. those statistics you see there are from the unhcr office, and they are 2008. our guest is vincent cochetel. we are talking about the drought in somalia.

republican in connecticut, you are for stop. -- are first up. caller: good morning, commissioners. host: joyce, you have got to turn down the volume and a tv. we will put you on hold, but don't hang up. listen to the found -- to the phone. mike in tampa. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span, for taking my call. you know, just thinking about this, at there has to be a similar solution. supplying these people with a way of growing their own food. put up solar panels and used the condensation. host: simpler solution for helping these people. guest: we see that in other countries and we fully agree with you. the problem is that in somalia, as soon as you demonstrate

entrepreneurial skills, your be a or suspected to wealthy individual and are at risk to be abducted were killed. al-shabab is keeping a close look on people and it is difficult to establish any kind of business in central or southern somalia. host: is it time, in your view, for military intervention in this situation? guest: i am representing a humanitarian organization. and never for conflict. but we should not be mistaken, there is no humanitarian solution do something that is a political problem in somalia. this cannot go on forever. otherwise, we are going to see more people leaving somalia. we can provide some humanitarian response. safety in the countries around the somalia. we can do it inside somalia to assist people most in need. but there is no a humanitarian

solution to this problem. host: there for? gu -- therefore? guest: therefore, the countries with some leverage on somalia -- saudi arabia, yemen, qatar -- need to talk to various stakeholders in somalia on a political deal at some stage. host: next call for mr. cochetel, let's go back to connecticut. joyce, you ready? caller: yes. good morning, commissioner. i was the administrator of two the fiji camps for two years. i found that i could not get -- two refugee camps for two years. i thought that i cannot get to first base with the high commissioner for refugees when i had problems with the camp and the government. the food that used to come in,

us flags on them, said "gift of the people of the united states," were immediately turned over to the refugees in the camps, which were governed by it thugs. they would take the food and make refugees pay for it, or they did not get it. now, i don't know about you, but it seems to me that every time i went to high commissioner for refugees about problems, the only answer i ever got was, "oh, i will have to speak to the president." is this condition going to continue? guest: well, thank you for your questions. the issue of the diversion by some people, some individuals, sometimes some refugees inside some camps, that is a real problem. it happens in many countries

around the world. we have a complete mechanism. we established a couple of years ago an investigation unit that is totally independent, capacity to investigate and take remedial action against these sorts of allegations. what we are confronted with these allegations, we investigate and take remedial action. i have to tell you come in 25 years working in the field with refugee emergency, it is complex. when you have a camp like that with 400,000 people, you try to do your best. you are putting monitoring procedures in place to make sure people get what they are supposed to get. we take corrective measures. it is true that in some situations, difficult sometimes for refugees to access our stuff. especially at times of emergency, because we are a bit overwhelmed. but there are procedures in place and people to voice complaints. if they can not reach you and

staff on the ground, they can reach u.s. ngo staff on the ground and we investigate. host: just this year alone in the first half of 2011, and ans tional 425,000 somali an have fled to kenya and 6000 have fled to ethiopia. if somebody wanted to help, where would you suggest they go? guest: if people want to help, first, there are many non- governmental organizations, including american and non- governmental organizations. if people have time to volunteer, it is a good time to help. there are many in the area of medical response, comcommunity service. people can also donate to u.s.

ngo's and other actors involved in relief efforts. host: if somebody, mr. cochetel, or to donate it to you when a food relief for whatever, or the high commissioner's office, would they be ensured that they are buying foodstuffs for people? guest: absolutely. when people give money, they can give money for this project, the scarboro refugees, and we make sure the money is not used for -- this group of refugees, and we make sure the money is not used for other purposes. host: my point being, how do you know the aid is actually getting to it? guest: we have no guarantee that it will reach the people. i worked in the middle of the war in chechnya. we cannot get guarantees in some communities that we would be able to verify whether the people were getting assistance we provide it.

i went back with food trucks and we did not distribute anything. host: what happened with the food trucks? guest: we kept them until we have an adequate mechanism. we did not just want to add it to the authorities on the trust they would be destroyed. host: you were kidnapped, correct? guest: yes, i was kidnapped and spent one year in captivity. host: 20 minutes of sunlight a day? guest: the candle. soup on a piece of bread. host: what was the point of 20 minutes of sunlight a day? guest: i was kept in a location in chechnya and they put them in the ground where people don't know about their presence. any part -- many parts of

chechnya at that time, they did not have electricity supply. host: how is it you got released? guest: the russian authorities, after a lot of pressure, said a special operation to get me out. host: military operation? guest: yeah. people got killed. host: that was in 1991 -- guest: 1998. host: the which it with your question for -- go ahead with your question for vincent cochetel. caller: i was concerned, because i would like to donate but i do not have internet access. a lot of the media will prompt you to "go to our website" if you want to help, but i know a lot of people where i lived don't have internet access.

maybe you have a phone number of the top of your head, maybe? what can people like me do? i will take your answer offline. guest: you have to decide which organization you want to give your donation. you can send it to us and we can channel it to the organization. you can write to us at 1717 k street, washington. indicate which organization you want to give your check and we will channel it to the organization. host: once again, the u.n. high commissioner for refugees office, unhcr. 1775 k street nw, washington, d.c. 20005.

connecticut, frank, you are on with vincent cochetel. caller: yeah, good morning. my question is, ok, i have been listening, and you sort of basically answered, but there's actually no way to ensure that the money we are giving to somalia is actually going to get to the simoleons -- to the somalians? is there a way to ensure it is going to get there? guest: well, i'm talking first about so many refugees in kenya, ethiopia, djibouti. we can assure you we get the assistance with the generous response we're getting from u.s. citizens, but also citizens from many parts of the world and governments. inside a somalia, all the

organizations involved -- we don't do much in somalia because we don't have guarantees in place in many areas of somalia that the aid will reach people. it is important to check with the organization where you want to donate to, where they operates, how they operates, what sort of assurance they can give you. i am not saying the money will be diverted. we know there is more demand got humanitarian organizations to make sure the assistance reaches the right people. if you have hesitation, contact the agency you want to help or get more details on what they are doing inside somalia. host: do you have any estimates on how many people have died so far in this somalia famine? guest: no, i don't have estimates. but what i want your viewers to know is that we talk about the famine.

but if people come to ethiopia, kenya, not just because of the famine -- if it was just the famine, they would a state where it they are. if they moves, it is because there are other pressures. the conflict has been going on for many years, all sorts of human rights violations taking place their. and 30 seconds with someone in -- if you spend 30 seconds with someone in kenya and ask why they went to kenya, and they say the famine, give them five minutes and asked them what their life was like in somalia and white they made the choice to move to kenya, you will hear stories that they were beaten because they would not wear the veil, beaten in prison because they wore bras, prohibited by

al-shabab, prohibited to sell me on the market. people have left to their livelihoods. you hear about girls being gang raped by local thugs, protected by officials. you have a lot of factors contributing to the movement of people. it is not just famine. host: recently the u.s. eased restrictions on its relationship relationship,early but eased restrictions when it came to al-shabab. guest: the u.s. did not necessarily ease restrictions, but the u.s. understands better the constraints under which organizations can work inside somalia. there is a constant and regular dialogue between the u.s. administration on the non- governmental organizations and u.n. agencies that work in

somalia. they and a san better how we work, with whom we work. -- they understand better how we work, with whom we work. as soon as you have big camps, we are going to bring to the trucking contract, bring the food and at the camp, distribute inside the camp. there is going to be a tax imposed, bribes requested to get access to supplies and all that. they understand that there are -- we have to work at the community-based level with people trust and that working for for many years did those people have a limited capacity. host: is there an end to the situation there? guest: well -- host: as far as the weather goes, and you talk about the political situation going on since 1991 are so. guest: well, political

situation, i am not very optimistic, on the sticky stakeholders in the region -- not necessarily the u.s. government, but neighboring countries taking a role in peace process in somalia. and it depends on the rainfall. we will see in late september and beginning of october whether the situation improves. it will not bring immediate results. we expect more people to continue to be affected by the famine and continue to move until the end of september. host: beginning at 10:00 a.m. this morning, the house foreign affairs subcommittee on africa is holding a hearing on ethnic cleansing in sudan. we will be bringing that to you live. humanitarian crisis there as well. when was the last time you were in mogadishu? guest: personally i got into mogadishu, but have been in and out every day.

host: what have you heard from fellow co-workers about the situation? guest: a lot of people try to get there to access the food, but to do that they have to cross the fire in line. host: brooklyn, new york, thanks for holding. stephanie, you are on the air to . caller: peter, i think you are great. you are the most unbiased representative for the network. the un forces, are they extending our relationship with the saudi companies that are able to add aid to what others have done? it seems a shame that these people are being held hostage by their own people in the form of terrorism. this is against all moral standards. i cannot understand why the very wealthy countries are not stepping in and reaching out in

a humanitarian way and also the u.n. peacekeeping forces trying to put some type fence around these people that are basically extorting money in order to get aid to get through. it seems like a thing that needs to be done in a group effort. guest: absolutely right, but there is the challenge, to mobilize other countries that can play an active role inside somalia. the saudi private donors, some of the other governments in the gulf, the middle east, playing a more active role in studying the situation and reaching conditions for national dialogue, a reconciliation process, improvement of the situation on the ground. it was an article recently in "foreign policy" saying that famine maybe the crime.

it could averted through mitigation measures. and other population in a situation for many years paying a high price for people who did not take responsibility. host: mr. cochetel, what has been the reaction of the kenyan government, the ethiopian government? yemen government has quite a few refugees. you got the -- ugandan government, etc. guest: the country sat in it quite generous. -- the countries have been quite generous. 170,000 people went to kenya in less than six months. imagine what the reaction of the people would be in this country. those governments have been generous. local populations are also showing solidarity vis-a-vis

people coming over t. there are national security concerns, and we have to listen to them and mitigate those concerns. we have to screen the people who are there. it is going to take a lot of months for us to reassure those countries that all those people in the camps are genuine refugees and not people coming for other purposes. host: are you satisfied with the amount of attention the u.s. and eu are paying to the situation? guest: we are satisfied by the response. it is always difficult, especially in times of constraints and all that -- budgetary constraints and all that, but there are significant efforts to study the situation -- to stabilize the situation, at least for refugees. we hope to see more governments involved in the response. host: tweets in --

next call for vincent cochetel comes from detroit. william, you are on the air guest. caller: your record at the un has been dismal when it comes to crises. we can cite rwanda, congo. when are you going to go over there and make something happen? guest: 90 for the call. i understand your -- but frustrate -- thank you for the call. i understand your frustration. it depends on member states, what decisions are taken within the security council. it is not the when deciding -- not the un deciding.

as far as humanitarian organizations are concerned, and i am not talking only about the commission for refugees, but talking about unicef, i can talk about the world food program, we do what we can to provide humanitarian response to people in need their. but we have a very, very little leverage on the root causes of the conflict spread at most we can help the victims, but we are not able to prevent the conflict and we have at very little leverage in trying to engage the actors into a political dialogue. host: does the un have troops on the ground in somalia? guest: four different countries have troops under very specific mandate given to the security council for a mission inside mogadishu area. host: next call, fairfax,

virginia. you are on the air. caller: hello, is that me? yeah, i was born and raised in africa. it seems that this problem has been going on for much -- long time, ages. it is about time for the west to change their policy. i appreciate the gentleman there is trying to help, helping solve the problem. but really, we are not solving the problem. all the energy in studying religion -- religion is not going to help issues like that. how about sending a message that it is not just sending aid, but may be changing the policy towards the third world? maybe we should start supporting more on science and find ways and means to stop the problem physically, not just sitting there and teaching people every day religion. not that i am against religion,

but people in that part of the world spend 90% of their time just teaching religion and religion does not help solve the problem. i think it is about time that we change the message. let them get the message that we will get involved in science. that is why america and the west is developed. it is more about science in schools. the kids grow up and actually get into innovation and come up -- this problem can be solvable. host: where did you grow up? caller: i grew up in sierra leone. the poorest country in the world right now. host: mr. cochetel? guest: you are absolutely right. some of these countries need a longer term development programs that would address the root causes of the problem. a bit more on a positive note -- none of the other countries

in africa are facing famine to d -- today. lack of development, human rights, but you don't have other countries at this stage with a famine. development programs using science -- i don't think religion is necessarily -- many organizationsou are deeply involved in a country and africa. but i agree with you that we need to be more creative on these programs. host: matt tweets in. guest: well, that is a very good question. transfer of population has not taken place. it is not something that the

international community, i think, would support. the last transfer of population i can think of -- part of the dismantlement of the ottoman empire where turks moved to avoid a mass killing of minorities. transfer of populations affected by harsh climate i don't think will happen. what you see in somalia at this stage is a bit of a partition of the country. you have two regions of somalia , defacto is separated from the rest of the somalia. not politically separated, but administratively separated you may see more fragmentation of the country in the coming months. host: was there tactically at famine in sudan and the last decade or so?

-- technically famine in sudan in the last decade or so? guest: not to the best of my knowledge. host: the countries separated with the south sudan. can you see that happening in somalia? guest: again, i don't want to make political statements. we are a humanitarian organization. an initiative pushed by some somali factions in kenya to create a separate territory in the south of somalia, which would comprise four or five regions in the south of somalia. the idea is that we would have to have some sort of safe-haven there with different territory. whether it will happen, whether kenya will allow for that,

nobody knows. host: a few minutes left before the house foreign affairs hearing on the humanitarian situation in sudan. tampa, you are on the air. caller: two comments. first of all, i think the last caller was from west africa. the problems in west africa are very different from what we're talking about in somalia. west africa is making it no progress at the moment. -- is making a little progress at the moment. also, somalia is an indictment of the international community. how could we let al-shabab and al qaeda affiliate's when an entire country? i don't know how that happened. i lived in minneapolis for awhile, and it is a visible somali community there. it is i don't want to say everywhere, but they are very visible. i was hoping you could explain the process you have of resettling refugees at how they

come to the united states and places in europe. host: thank you, caller. guest: very good. thank you for your remarks about west africa. you are absolutely right. i want to give yours positive tone on that. like ivory coast, nobody talks about it now. is getting soft. some crises find a -- solutions. -- it is getting solved. some crises find solutions. that is good, really up positive sign. you are absolutely right. people have forgotten somalia. after the last missions, the u.s. engaging missions in somalia, somalia has been to a large extent of black hole with no one wanting to intervene at, nobody wants to trigger a political dialogue. djibouti, a couple of countries tried to initiate a political

dialogue. i think there is a sense of fatigue when you talk about somalia among a lot of countries. in relation with so many refugees who are resettled, about 10,000 somali refugees are settled around the world. 5000 of them are coming to the u.s. every year. it is a small program. resettlement is not the solution for everybody. it is only the solution for a tiny minority of refugees. the u.s. has been generous. the somali refugees are doing well whatever they are in the u.s. minneapolis, and other parts of the country. i visited some recently in chicago, illinois. they are doing very well. they have an entrepreneurial mind and they don't reduce the stigma of the fragmentation of the somali society