of the soviet union and why it matters today and later would begin a week- long series on medicare. we will be looking at the major changes to the program over the last 45 years. "washington journal" ♪ ♪ host: 42-year reign of colonel gaddafi. we're looking at images right now from al jazeera reported earlier today. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." we would like to know what you think about the latest news from libya. here are the numbers.

you can e-mail us and we are on twitter. you can also find us on facebook. again, the numbers to call -- let's take a look at "the financial times" headline. the rebels on sunday night said they would grant safe passage to gaddafi and his family if they agreed to leave the country. acclaim he had called for talks

with the leader of the national transitional council. other news. as we mentioned, from the bbc, it says throughout the night jubilant people remained in the square. the rebels met little resistance as they swept in from east, the south, and the west. a rebel spokesman said pro gaddafi forces still control 15% of tripoli. tanks emerged from his compound early on monday morning and began firing, according to a rebel spokesman. gunfire has been heard in the area. let's now go to missy ryan from reuters. tell us about where you are and what you're seeing. >> i am among about two dozen

foreign journalists at the hotel where we have essentially been confined since the beginning of the conflict. we have been under the watchful eye of government minders for months now, but most of those people seem to have melted away in the last 24 hours when it became clear that rebels were entering the city. the mood has changed dramatically in the last two .ays th the confidence of the gaddafi government has folded when it became clear the rebels were more organized and people expected and they were met with little resistance. host: we are hearing reports of explosions around the gaddafi compound. it sounds like the rebels have reached that area. what are you watching to see

happen? >> we also have reports there are tanks around gaddafi's headquarters. if there is going to be a last stand, this is where it will happen. what remains to be clear is how much precision there is amongst the military and how willing they are to stand beside gaddafi if the city is turned against him. there has been some sporadic fighting. it's a mistake to assume the conflict is over, but the momentum seems to be homicide of the rebels. host: what are you hearing about colonel gaddafi whereabouts -- about seif al-islam whereabouts? >> nobody knows. we do not even know if he is in tripoli. he appeared on an audio recording on state television last night. he was very defiant.

he is clearly in a position of weakness now. host: missy ryan, how unexpected or expected was this development? so much of them american media has been focused on domestic politics. this has not really been led up to in the reporting. how surprising was this for you? guest: we have been watching the rebel events for weeks. it was not a surprise. this has been accomplished from the beginning. the rebels' military capacity has not been very impressive. they have only been able to advance with nato. when they seized areas along the coast and advanced to the capital, it was a huge job for everyone. >> i'm looking at your latest story from reuters. it looks like this.

it is the mood like there? what are you hearing from locals? guest: a lot of june balance among the most of the tripoli presideresidents. there's a lot of disbelief. there's also a lot of uncertainty. there are a number of people in a city whose fortunes, futures, jobs, are very heavily invested in colonel gaddafi. they do not know what will happen to them. there's also a fear of retribution on the part of the rebels. i think those fears are very justified. in this.o's role you wrote this in your story.

what is nato's investment right now? guest: in some ways, nato's credibility has been on the rise. bringing a regime change in a way that was very clear on the political level. the stated mission was protection of civilians. from a historical perspective, there will be a big debate on whether nato did the right thing. for the people of tripoli and across libya who are looking forward to a future post-muammar gaddafi, think there will be in agreement that nato did the right thing for them. >> you have reported that two of

gaddafi's sons have been seized. >> we do not have much detail. there has been so much misinformation from both sides from the beginning. we need to be cautious about trying to assert how much we know. the rebel leadership is now in negotiations to hand over seif and his, gaddafi's son heir apparent, and his other son, in custody. host: missy ryan, thank you. guest: thank you thank you. host: what do you think about this latest news out of libya? caller: good morning, c-span. this is a wise way to take down a tyrant. unlike the bring-them-on-bush

crowd -- he will not get any credit, just like he brought down osama bin laden. we have three wonderfully minded people. we're in good hands. this country needs barack obama. i am proud of this man. thank you. host: bryan, independent caller in illinois. caller: good morning. i think this will be a mixed bag. nobody knows what will happen. gaddafi was a vicious tyrant. let's hope he is not replaced with another one. libya has a lot going for it. it has some of the best crude

oil in the a world. it should be able to find itself sufficiently. i also want to make a comment. this arab spring, all these uprisings, -- american media never discusses the demographics of the arab world. the arab world is a mess. it has high unemployment, a young populations, and a high birthrate. all this instability is because nearly 1/3 of the young adults cannot find a job. the projections are that the population of the arab world is going to double again in the next 30 years. this uprising, this instability across the arab world is only going to get worse. i think we need to get ready for that. i wish american media, and i

think c-span is one of the better elements of american media, would discuss the demographics, population growth, when we discuss what's going on in the world. have a good morning. host: johnny, are you calling from? caller: winston-salem, north carolina. i'm just happy it turned out the way it turned out. i'm happy we did not have to do like we did iraq and afghanistan and put our young men in harm's way. there's no reason for that. there's no reason to be in afghanistan right now. there's no reason for us to be in iraq. this is their revolution. they need to fight their own revolutions. i think the oil companies are rising up again in iraq, trying to get us to stay over there. the longer we stay there, the more money we spend, the worst

we are. we need to come out of there and let people fight their own wars. host: she says she appreciates the fact the u.s. was not more involved. let's look at an opinion piece in "the wall street journal" this morning. it is called "the fall of tripoli." repneeet's go to

independenon the line for indep. good morning. caller: this is a horrible new occupation by nato and the united states. more dead american soldiers, billions of wasted dollars to fund an occupation that will have us more established nonsensically. now obama is calling for the syrian president assad to step down. this is all for more money, more bases, and israel. the media is always lying. they have not told the truth of how the rebels got into tripoli. nato and the united states have troops on the ground. i'm telling you they have troops on the ground. in the coming days, you will see exactly what they have done. thank you very much.

host: let's look at a statement from the president. this was issued yesterday. president obama also says in the statement, "muammar gaddafi and his regime me to recognize their role has come to an end." president obama goes on to say that "the future of libya is now oin the hands of the libyan people >" ." >> the gaddafi regime is clearly crumpling. the sooner gaddafi realizes he cannot win the battle against his own people, the better, so

that the libyan people can be scared further bloodshed and suffering. the libyan people have suffered tremendously under gaddafi's rule for over four decades. now they have a chance for a new beginning. now is the time for all threats against civilians to stop, as the united nations security council demanded. now is the time to create a new libya, a state based on freedom, not fear, democracy, not dictatorship, the will of the few. not the weaponwhims of a host: let's take a look at how the prime minister of the uk is responding. prime minister david cameron said --

host: john on the line for democrats. turn down your tv. go right ahead. caller: i would like to make some comments. what do you think about howard stern's -- host: we are talking about the libyan rebels reaching tripoli and what your reaction is. caller: thank you for taking my call. hopefully in 10 years we will see this -- how the arab youth have made a change in the world for freedom. i just think it is exciting times. host: it sounds like you're getting emotional about it.

caller: it is exciting. maybe tomorrow gaddafi will be gone. host: how meaningful is this for you? caller: very. unfortunately, most americans do not care because they are unemployed. very, very. like i said, five or 10 years in the future, i think it will mean something, if they can keep a democratic -- what am i trying to say? have democratic institutions in the arab world. yeah, very exciting times. emotional. host: what is it about the youth in this movement? you started your comment by saying that. why is that significant to you?

caller: all of these people are under 30. they are the ones, i think, doing it. the engine for a change in the arab world. syria is next. host: james, independent line in washington, d.c. caller: i think the change that is taking place in tripoli is largely foreign manufactured, if you consider the fact that the rebels would not have had any chance of victory if they had not received air cover from nato. for nato and the un to hold to the line that the nato intervention was just to protect the civilian population is completely disingenuous.

they were, you know, destroying gaddafi's military the entire time and providing cover for the rebel advances. western advisers have been on the ground trying to get them organized. there have been weapons shipments, etc. the rebels would not have been even conceivable without the massive amounts of u.s. and european military and vice and material support. host: let's look at a story there replace to -- story that relates to what james is talking about in "the new york times." it says --

host: charlotte, north carolina on the line for independents. cindy, good morning. turn down your tv for us. you are on the air. please go ahead. go ahead. caller: yeah, i did. i would just like to say that i think this whole thing is an outrage. the oil companies -- gaddafi demanded they pay more for some of that oil. they refused. he threatened to nationalizes oilfield. that's when the u.s. and the europeans stage of this coup to steal their oil. all of this crap about caring

about the protection of the human rights over there is just that. we are being run by unorganized, criminal organization in this country. it is shameful of this country. we just use other countries people to turn them against their governments when they have a natural resources that we want to steal. host: here are the lines to call if you would like to be involved in the conversation. rebels have reached tripoli. we are hearing from reuters and the bbc that the compound of colonel gaddafi is under attack. images of two of gaddafi's they're said to bea

captured in tripoli. those are the latest reports. a question on twitter. will look at some of the news in syria as the morning goes on. in e-mail -- william is a democratic caller in new orleans. good morning. caller: good morning, america. this started with the election of barack obama. we did see america changing where the black guys could be the president of the united states. that was a culture shock to everybody. that gave them the momentum. he went to the east and gave his speeches. this is a result of all of that.

america right now seems to be trying to take back what it has done. they have done a great thing. now, here we are. america looks so bad. thank you. host: let's go to a comment coming to us over e-mail. brett in washington state warns, "it has only just begun." and another from seattle. let's go to maine, barkley, republican.

good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. this is a significant development. i think this shows that nato does have some authority and some power to do good things. i also think there's a tremendous opportunity, if nato and the united states and perhaps some european nations can come together and give libya of the role to play a major influence in africa and in the arab world. for example, wouldn't it be great if libya were given sufficient arms and authority to take over the problem of the somali pirates? it is interesting that this goes back to history when we have the pirates we were fighting. i think it would be great if

some of the african countries, if libya could take the lead in providing a safer coast line in the mediterranean. host: this from the ap. "i think it is clear the rebels are winning." nicolas in denver, colorado. welcome. caller: the first thing i want to say is something that i think is kind of of logical weirdness. onlyhey say they're attempting to prevent u.s.

citizen casualty's? if the rebels are made up of citizens, how are they not protecting them? i have not heard anybody really mention this type of thing. i know that it is common. i do not know. i thought it was really obvious. the second thing i wanted to say is -- i guess the first thing was much more thought out. host: let's go to comment on facebook. let's go to minneapolis. caller: thank you for taking my call.

nato and the europeans are protecting anybody in that area. this committee -- crimes against humanity -- everybody who looks like a black eye and africa. millions of people. [inaudible] remember this genocide they promoted. i do not like gaddafi, but i do not like these people. killed thousands and thousands of african immigrants. i am from that neighborhood. everyone is happy. all they care is to get rid of

gaddafi. put another person there. they do not care about who dies. i hope somebody will take them to some kind of court or whatever. i do not hear anything from all these organizations that claim to be for human rights. host: let's take a look at this. this is senator john mccain, republican of arizona, on cbs. >> it is a matter of hours, if not days. i think it's was something that was going to happen. i believe it is nearing the end and it will be a big challenge forming a new government, uniting a country that's never known democracy.

we will be rid of a guy who has the blood of americans on his hands. we will be rid of a guy who has practiced the worst types of brutalities. i would like to say that i agree -- this conflict did not have to last this long. the united states air power could have shortened this conflict dramatically. unfortunately, we chose not to. the lead from behind. host: senator john mccain on cbs. let's look at a comment on facebook. district heights, maryland,

john on the line for democrats. ander: i'm so sick of lies hypocrisy. host: what is your concern? caller: george bush destroyed iraq can we are supposed to be worried about the libyan people? i have never heard so many misinformed and ignorant american people in my life. the oil companies are behind this mess. our government, with europe -- gaddafi has oil. iraq had oil. nigeria, there is oil. if they cannot buy it or -- they create a coup, kill the leader, and take the oil. when that thing for started, i was amazed at how many people had good paying jobs in libya. hundreds of thousands of people.

women had education. you have free medical care. the man was a tyrant, true, but the libyan people did not start this. outside forces did. same thing with the iraqi people. now they're going to talk about gaddafi when bush did what he did. this is pathetic. thank you. host: let's take a look at the headlines in the papers and how they're covering it today. "the wall street journal" -- " rebels sweep into tripoli." "usa today." and taking a look at "the new york times" -- this story, "libya rebels pour

into the capital." that is seif al-islam gaddafi. let's go to our next caller. entucky.le, k caller: thank you for taking my call. i think this is a disaster. the last time a democrat supported an unknown was when jimmy carter was convinced that the ayatollah's was a good guy and iran went from a friendly country to an adversary and now we have this. we do not know who these guys are.

that is my opinion. host: let's go to a common coming to us on twitter. getting to the issue that a couple of folks have brought up about oil. jim says, yes, it's about oil, but the u.s. could get it with or without gaddafi. next on the phone lines is richie on the line for independents. caller: i'm calling about these uprisings. the cia is nothing but a military.within a narrow carr the man from maryland was right. this is all about oil. the united states of america has really turned around from being nice people to a bunch of

people wanting to take over what ever they want. they go on with the military and they take it. it's a shame. when we call these people dictators, our government is a dictator. host: let me ask you this. what do you think about the rebel effort? we are looking at images. here's a picture of them celebrating because they moved into tripoli. the uc them as being controlled by outside forces -- do you see them as being controlled by outside forces? caller: absolutely. iran and 1983. the bay of pigs. we turn around and stab them in the back. host: let's take a look at how "the new york times" is reporting on this. "there were small, ecstatic gatherings, but there were also

long, silent streets in a city of frayed nerves, and rumors of roving government soldiers and snipers everywhere." the next is bob, republican in virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been stationed in tripoli in 1969. gaddafi killed and jailed most of his people who never spoke against him. for the libyan people, this is the greatest day they've ever had in their lives. people who called in complaining have no idea. thank you. host: all right. our next caller is in tabernacle.

kirk on the line for democrats. caller: how are you doing? host: good. thank you. caller: i look at this mess and i do not think we understand at all. i would like to think a conspiracy 30 understands -- conspiracy theory understands it all. we are going to have a similar problem. so many people are uneducated in this country. pretty soon they are going to have an uprising of their own and we will have to figure it out. we will have a lot of trouble. their money is running out, too. you have to hope that something good comes out of this. that's about it. host: what would you see as a good outcome? caller: the whole world is agitated for some reason. i would like to see everyone working together, loving one another, and too many industries

are not hurting through all of this. we have america. we believe we are number one. the truth is, we might be kidding ourselves. up in is putting flags parts of the world. china. we are opening the doors for other countries to take what we thought we were in charge of. i hope we can all be nice about it, work together, and try to make something sustainable on this planet. host: let's go to some other news stories that are happening right now. this is from "the wall street journal." it says -- the story right next to it looking at politics, looking at

some people whose names are still being floated. sarah palin has a new campaign- type video out. according to this article, people are still looking for candidates. and looking at jon huntsman, republican candidate. host: looking at some comments

by a leading republican in congress. house majority leader k cantor has this editorial piece in "the washington post." he writes about how to spark the economy. taking a better sense of where you are act when we talk about the latest news coming from libya, let's go back to the phones. new jersey. ruth on the line for independents. what do you think about the latest news out of libya? caller: i disagree. i imagine a lot of the things that went over -- that went on over there were paid agitators.

i do not believe america is a democracy. who are we to do this? they only want the oil. i do not take -- i do not believe they give one iota about those people and their education. people cannot be reasonable. one thing is for sure. what goes around comes around. host: we have heard some folks mentioned syria this morning. let's take get the -- let's take a look at the latest news. "assad says he rejects west's calls to resign." this is in an interview with syrian television. in columbia, maryland, frank on the line for republicans.

caller: good morning, america. i do not like gaddafi, but i am disturbed listening to john mccain saying [inaudible] that simply means america can simply go over there and kill more people. you know, that's really disturbing over here. america should be worried about china and russia and not gaddafi. [inaudible] host: a comment on twitter. phoenix, arizona, max, republican.

good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i agree with some of the callers who say it is big oil in the middle east, but i also say it is a relationship with big oil oligarchs, as well as the military industrial complex, which has become a military industrial machine. i also believe it has something to do with israel, because israel in the middle east is a key figure. i believe they conduct operations behind-the-scenes. assad, for example. of ourally none business. it is a presumption that democracy needs to be in other parts of the world. democracy is only one form of

government. host: chris writes on facebook -- they did in georgia -- david in georgia on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i was so happy when i heard the news. this man has been power 40 years. that's my whole lifetime. the point is, this is about freedom. you have a guy who has been in power for 40 years, killing his own people. when are people going to learn that you have to help people out like that? just like what happened with saddam hussein. dictatorships do not work. the only reason that guy is

saying that is because they know they can bully people like that. it's all about freedom. host: omaha, neb., independent line. colonialt's kind of a smash and grab, in my opinion. i think saddam hussein made some comments about trading in oil with the euro before we invaded iraq. and then gaddafi and some of his comments -- i am with some of the other callers. host: what do you think about the libyan people themselves? caller: it is kind of unusual that when all of this started, all of a sudden, a central bank pop up out of nowhere for the libyan rebels. i thought that was peculiar. host: coming up, a look at the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the soviet union.

first, we will talk about fact checking and the 2012 candidates. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ [bells ringing]

>> notice the color of the bourbon, the pretty color that you see. it's all coming from the charre on the inside of the barrel. that's where berlin gets all of its color and a lot of its flavor. they discovered over 200 chemical flavors in the oaks and char from the beryl. >> this weekend, we highlight frankfurt, kentucky. on booktv on c-span2. and the life of john porter. on american history tv, a visit to buffalo traced distillery.

the first two state houses burned to the ground. booktv and american history tv in frankfurt, ky this weekend on c-span. >> for politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history, its the c-span network's. it's all available to you on television, radio, on line, and social media sites. we are on the road with our c- span digital bus and local content vehicles, and showing events from around the country. it is washington, your way. the c-span networks, created by cable, provide as a public service. watch more video of the

candidates and see what political reporters are saying. track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaign. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: bill adair is editor of politifact. how did this idea get started? guest: when i covered presidential campaigns, i have not done enough fact checking. in 2004, covering the bush- cheney and carry-edwards campaign, i have not done enough to tell people what was

true and what was not. my newspaper was willing to try and experiment and to let us create a fact checking epiwebsie where we would read them on a truth-o-meter and then collect those ratings for each candidate so that -- one of the innovative things about politifact is that you can go to any of the people we check, hundreds of people come and see what their record is. how many true, how many false- ratings they have gotten. also, look things up by feature. the whole idea is to do accountability journalism in a more modern way, in a way that takes advantage of the web. now we have an ipad and iphone

app that allows us to display our journalism in different ways. the idea is to bring journalism into the modern age, i guess you could say. host: i want to read from a piece that you have. our guest is bill adair and here is what he writes. host: how do you go about doing the fact checking? guest: we start off by going to the person who made the claim, weather is -- whether it is the office,use, boehner's

or the mayor of cleveland, and we say, "tell us where you got your information." then we try to determine the relative truth of the statement. we always try to find independent experts, when we can come on any particular claim. then we write an article that is presented to something of a court at politifact which is three editors that determine the truth-o-meter rating. we have done 4000 since we started. more recently, we have grown into the states. we now have politifact in ohio, texas, florida, oregon -- nine different states. i believe the result is the greatest, largest back checking effort in the history of journalism. host: some might say -- why can't journalists vet

themselves? you talked about your own frustration in trying to get some of the real time fact checking. why is it so hard? guest: fact checking journalism is not easy and it's not always something you can do easily. i think a lot of journalists do a good job at fact checking. not just politifact, but also a factcheck.org -- collectively, we have spurred a lot of interesting fact checking. what's different about what we do is that we are solely focused on this. by taking advantage of the web, we have presented it in a way that hold people accountable. we hear anecdotally from many members of congress, from governors, from mayors, that they're very aware of politifact and that they are changing what they say as a result. i find that encouraging. i think journalists should have

been doing that all along. i think it will continue to spread. host: why is it important to know about things like the price of slim jims? why is it important to look at the minutia? guest: we try not to take this stuff too seriously. that was a claim made by sarah palin, talking about how food prices had gone up so much. she said her husband was having to pay dramatically more for slim jims these days. like many of the things that we check by republicans, it was made in the context of blaming the democrats, blaming the white house. we had another one that was similar to that that we checked for michele bachmann when she talked about the price of a memorial day picnic and how it has gone up under president

obama. we raised that statement falls. someone once compared politifact to "the onion." i tried to take that as a compliment, because we try to have fun with this. deep down, its solid journalism. host: politifact won the pulitzer prize in 2009. you have the best record and the worst record -- guest: we do not do a best and worst. i can talk about how different candidates have faired. more recently, we have looked at rick perry, who just announced he was running for president. his record was mixed on the truth-o-meter. host: we are looking at the numbers here. guest: pants on fire, i should

explain, is a falsehood that's not just false, but ridiculously false. another presidential candidate who has a record with a lot of falses, who has been asked about it, is michele bachmann. i think about 20 of her radiance out of 30 -- 20 out of 30 have been false. on either side of the spectrum, ron paul has feared pretty well -- ron paul has done pretty well. one of the challenges for us now is people are urging for us to come up with some sort of a batting average of you could compare rick perry's record to

ron paul's record. we have not done that yet. we are obviously not a fact checking everything they say. we are fact checking things that we think voters would be curious about. politifact is about satisfying people's curiosity. when we check something -- we check something when we think someone would say, "really? is that true? host: bill adair is our guest. he is the editor of politifact .com. if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. you mentioned some of the candidates. let's talk about one we have not yet. mitt romney. here is how the numbers break down.

how is he doing compared to others? guest: that is a mixed record. he is building on his record from the 2008 campaign. we did a lot of fact checking on him in 2008. you are sort of constantly building your statistics. everything we've ever raided on mitt romney or on any one -- ever rated on mitt romney or on any one carries forward. this is a good way to hold elected officials and candidates accountable. we recognize that our readers do not always agree with our conclusions. in general, i think they respect our work. i think this is useful information. host: let's hear from a republican colorado and maryland. good morning. caller: good morning.

first of all, the statements your guest has made about groceries, the prices going up, obviously he has not been in a grocery store lately. they have increased greatly. i also wondered if the only sources of fact checking they use is internet, or if they do any of legwork, lego through videos or town hall meetings. host: let me first talk about the food prices. you need to look at the fact check specifically. i did not mean to say that a grocery prices had not gone up. it's just that the claim that congresswoman bachmann made was false. her claim was about the specific percentage increase in memorial day barbecue prices. it was based on some data that

was not appropriate in the way that she did that calculation. as for -- i forgot the second question. a comment. host: let me read you something on twitter. guest: absolutely. probably the one i recall most was the florida democratic party, the spokesman for the florida democratic party was very quick to call us when we gave the party a pants on fire. that is typical.

in the case of bill o'reilly, we gave him a false, and he acknowledged that on the air. jon stewart, probably our most famous fact check. he went on the next night and apologized. then he turned around and he read a list of statements that we had rated false that he noted had been made on the fox news channel. we get a lot of feedback. some is positive and some as negative. host: how much direct source

reporting do you get? guest: it is high. we get requests that you could fact check a debate in real time? it takes a while to do a good fact check. we tried to the two original sources. do we rely on the internet is like asking do we rely on the telephone? of course. the key is what sources use of the internet. we tried to go to original sources. we tried to go to the original vote to see if the congressman really voted the way somebody said. we look at the original roll- call. we put a lot of emphasis in original sources. >> democrat, missouri. a -- host: democrat, missouri.

caller: rick perry real against government spending. -- reeled against government spending. then i did some research. have you ever considered doing a hypocrisy meter? part of the problem in politics is a politician can make a statement that is technically true -- for example, the government spends too much. if you look at the hypocrisy of the statement of someone who is actually benefiting from the government spending in using it to balance their budget, it really is a lie or hypocrisy. have you ever thought about doing something like that?

guest: it is an interesting idea. we are big on meters, as you indicate in your question. we have not gone that far, because we really want to stay in the realm of fact checking. besides the truce-o-meter we have the -- truth-o-meter, we have a another major. -- we have a flip-o-meter. we do not have a high hop -- a hypocrisy meter. it is on the bounce of commentary. we have our plates full with fact checking. host: us take a look at the candidate rick perry. >> since june of 2009, 40%, as i

said earlier, of all the jobs in america, created in texas. it is time to do the same thing in our federal government. those simple principles will work as well in washington d.c. as they do in the state of texas. host: how busy doing talking about the job record in texas? guest: he has been somewhat accurate in describing a lot of the job situation in texas. the caller had an interesting point, that was made in a washington post story yesterday. many of the jobs created have come from additional federal spending. we did a fact check similar to the one you just had and we

raided the that true in looking at the number of jobs created there. it is important to note that we waited a some of the claims of the democrats and the claims of those -- quality of those jobs. they are not -- a fair number of minimum-wage jobs. host: here is what governor rick perry said back in january 2009. 7% of jobs created in the u.s. were in texas -- 70% of jobs created in the u.s. were in texas. that was false. in another statement was half true. guest: half-truth is the

statement is partially accurate, but leaves out important details. mostly true, it is correct but the leaves of content. what we tried to do is risk of the relative accuracy of something. the truth is not a black or right, but it has shades of gray. by leaving out context, politicians and pundits can mislead us. our reading something half-true, we can show that there is some truth to something, but there is important context that you should know about. host: same petersburg times washington bureau chief. a couple of folks are rich -- riding in on twitter. how has all been a fair to so far? guest: no one has been checked more than president obama. we checked him 330 times.

his ratings have been more towards the true end of the scale. he has had a 25% of his ratings have been true. he has had a fair number of false as. 49, which account for 15% of his ratings. a 41, mostly false as. for pants on fire ratings. -- four pants on fire ratings. host: we have the scorecard of president obama right there. you can see how his numbers are adding up.

guest: when we tried to collect his campaign promises, he had made more than 500 campaign promises. he made some early progress through the pure power of executive power and the past many in the economic stimulus. lately, now that the republicans are in control of the house, congress has stalled on many of his promises. >> do you have a comparison point, that if other candidates running for president have made that many promises during their campaign? guest: we do not have the resources to go back and look at other presidents. but is different about barack obama as a candidate is, because he was a relatively new player

on the washington scene, he felt he had to be very specific in his promises to individual groups. he made many specific promises to labor unions, parents of children with autism, many different people. the result is a lot more to track. host: indiana, independent line. caller: i would like to ask if -- a question. why have you not focused on some people specifically, what they are promising in terms of the

disparity between wealth, the poor, and how can these economic procrastination may be spinning out to show that we really are not having a trickle-down theory. contrast to the voodoo economics of reagan, you are telling a lie. guest: you have to consider that we are in the fact checking business. we have to wait for somebody to make a factual claim, and then we researched it and read it on our meter. we are not in a commentary business. we are not convinced. we have to wait until somebody makes a claim that we think is interesting, provocative, that we think people would be curious about. we then read it.

we have raided many by republicans that identified themselves as the party members. we have raided many claims by democrats. i think we have done a very good job of that. if you go to our site and look under subjects, you can see various subjects, whether it is the economy or deficit, where we have done a lot of of fact checking. host: tennessee. caller: what is the average percentage between what he fact checked on republicans versus democrats? is it 50-50? what would it be? guest: we do not keep that the data. our goal is to check the most interesting, provocative statements. others have analyzed our work and found that it is roughly 50-

50. it will vary depending on the week. we've been checking more republicans, because there are a running or whatever the number is. naturally, there is more conversation by the people running against barack obama. we have been checking more republicans lately. our goal is to help you make sense of politics. more of what you are hearing is from the democrats, then we will check them more. host: this writer from twitter says i love the pants on fire rating. guest: when we look at our traffic numbers every day, that rating is always on top. it is better for us to signal that we do not take this stuff too seriously.

we want to do journalism in a way that is accessible. some of the political discourse can be downright silly. host: examples of recent pants on fire statements? guest: we gave one to mr. rahm a couple of weeks ago. he said, we are inches away from and no longer having a free economy. this was a claim he made in his announcement speech. we thought it was interesting and was there a way to show how free the u.s. economy was. one person went to the conservative think tank that it did ranking somehow free economy rankings are. we ranked high for having a pretty free economy.

this is a big is saturation on his part, so he got pants on fire. host: washington. caller: thanks for taking my call. on the scale of a moderate spending of the truth, i was wondering if this was more offending to voters and potential voters -- do people find it more offensive about people and get asked a question at a rally, and it plays off the top and he does not have a fact for that particular answer -- or

are voters more offended by something that they know is absolutely not true. which do you think our sensibilities more? guest: i think you are right. there are two very different circumstances. we have falsehoods that we think under the clean lights mistakes. you are being interviewed. he say something wrong and get a number wrong. that slip up -- he may consider it a misdemeanor. the more egregious one, of a

prison it would bother people more. i cannot speak for the american people. are they the calculated falsehoods, where somebody goes and says something, knowing it is not true and it is a big a saturation. every year, we award a lie of the year. the last year was a government takeover of health care, describing the health care reform law as a government takeover of health care. there are many ways you can accurately describe the health- care law and what is a dramatic change in health care. it is not accurate to call it a government takeover, which conjures images of the european style medicine. that line got repeated over and over again. many that repeated that line

probably knew it was not true. host: rhode island, independent. caller: when the federal government says a certain percentage of premiums have to go towards health care costs rather than profit, i would suggest yes, the government is taking over health care. that is not why i called. i want to find out who you voted for in the last presidential election. the president said the vice- president did not call the tea party terrorists. and have the fact check to that? host: why is that important to you? caller: when i call in, i have to say if i am independent or democrat poured republican. everyone comes to the table with pre-conceived notions. i just want to know what his is.

it does not mean his immigration is not correct. is to be factored -- factored into the competition. guest: one thing with american journalism is that we respect the privacy of the voting booth. what is public is public. you would find that i am not affiliated with any party. we do not require a the staff -- we to not disclose who they vote for. we think the privacy of the vote booth is sacred. we did not feel that that was something -- that there was anything to fact check about. the claim that the vice- president made was done by

reporters line on unnamed sources. we do not rely, and now and sources. -- unnamed sources. [unintelligible] we have rejected stories that reporters have turned in a that relied on unnamed sources. we have made them take this material out. it is important in fact checking that people be accountable for their words and we be accountable for the reporting. we will not base it on an anonymous source. host: missouri. caller: koufax checks your people? -- who fact checks your people?

i am beginning to have my doubts about you. i am beginning to think you are no different from our mainstream media? host: heavy checked the web site yet? he hung up on us. guest: some say we are too hard on democrats or republicans. we are independent. we look at these claims from the perspective of the independent journalists. look at our website right now. the first item is a false for president obama's education secretary. a false for the press secretary. there are a couple of false as for rick perry.

we did in impended research and call them as we see them. host: patricia, a democratic college in long beach. caller: i would like to discuss with you, there was an article in the new york daily news last week by a political -- he did not write it, but another person did. he was encouraging with everyone to come out with some dirt on rick perry. the article is very long. it scared me a bit. it turned out to be all false. will this be a really dirty campaign for 2012?

will you be very busy doing the false and untrue and pants on fire? guest: this is the nature of modern-day politics. it is rough and tumble. in the old days, there were filters. everything was seen it through the filter of the union dues or the big newspapers or wire services. now, thanks to the internet, it is much more bare knuckled. it is a great time to be a fact checker. with all of these claims going around, it is our job to check them out. when people say something, we do not just check claims about policies or issues. if someone makes an attack on someone about their record or things they have done, we check that out.

i am not familiar with the article you are referring to, but that is the type of thing that we expected to check a lot of this year. host: looking at arne duncan here. here is his record. guest: this was a good one and done by our colleagues in texas. they have nine state sites around the country. it is done by the austin american statesman. they went to the original sources, which are the state's statistics on class size. they found that there have not been massive increases in class. at some great, there had been

slightly decry -- decreases. it is not the massive increase that he talked about. that would earn falls on the meter. host: our guest is the editor for politifact. he also is the washington bureau chief for the "st. petersburg times." let's go to our independent line -- i think we lost that caller. santa monica, calif., republican. caller: and thanks for taking my call. i want to ask the guest about something that is important to me. i think facts can be distorted into twisted a lot. i want to turn to education.

one says that texas is not doing as well as other states like wisconsin. there was a study done on wisconsin and texas. the comparisons are not valid for equal. 30% of the students in texas are hispanic versus 4% in wisconsin. of the hispanics that are in texas, they are doing better than those in wisconsin. they said of the students in texas that are white, they are doing better than the ones in wisconsin. you do not look at town demographics were you do not take into account certain ethnic groups and certain groups are better in other states where they are more popular, but their performance is lower than the national average. the you ever take those kinds of things into account?

guest: absolutely. by the way you asked the question, you illustrated our challenge. deciphering these things can be very complicated. there are many different factors. as really get a claim made by a politician or pandit, there are many details that we have to account for. we do our best to do so. i am not familiar with the particular study you are refering to, but we do our best. if we get something wrong, and somebody points out that we got it wrong, we will go back and look at it again. what we do is so important that these claims about whether it is about education or somebody's background or what ever are the building blocks of people's decisions about whether they will support a policy or not. who or what they will vote for.

even a claim -- or complicated claim about education, hispanic and performance -- they are building blocks in a decision be. fact checked one of one of our tweeters. guest: i would rate his claim falls. friedrich false. -- false. host: here is the claim by pawlenty. guest: there is a consensus on global warming. there have been people but have spoken up against it.

we looked at that and at the number of them relative to the size of the scientist. we felt that there is not a lack of consensus on this anymore. it is pretty remarkable that it continues to be this debate on it. thousands of scientists have agreed with the report. what is interesting about the message on twitter is it characterized our work as saying -- i was joking that he would have earned mostly false. these are what we deal with everyday. we do our best to look at the specific wording of the claims and rate the integrity of what people were saying. host: here is how it was raided.

it said a false. and there is context here. you explain why and have given the rating you have. guest: that is an article that is probably 1500 words that goes into detail about wiry reach that conclusion. one of the concepts is that using the power of the web, it is very laird. you can come to our homepage and see the person, the statement, the rating. you can click for the article. if you want to read more, you can list -- we list all of our sources. you can come to your own conclusion. host: democratic caller in evanston, illinois. caller: do you have a category known as almost true? guest: mostly true. caller: i have seen you on

msnbc.com. i think they brought you on because you notice something as barely true. in fact, when you look at what was there, 99% of what was done was true. there was something minor that you said, this is why we give it to this rating. that small plane had no significant impact. that was one thing. here is my room main reason for calling. when you look at president obama and he rate him on the promises kept -- when you have a congress, this is where your categories are inflexible. you have a congress that the people are absolutely entrenched in bringing down this president at all costs, even if it means

bringing the country down. yet you say, and he did not complete his promise. that is no different than if i said bill, i will pick you up and take you to a place. on my way i get held hostage. would you hold me accountable for that? guest: great question. we get to the sell-off. it has to do with our rating system not just on obama but also our pledge meter, where we rate the promises of the republican congress. one thing we decided to do was to treat a promise that was not fulfilled as a promise broken. that can mean that even if it is beyond the person or the group's powers that it is still a promise broken. president obama made some

promises relative to cap and a trade. those are probably not going to be fulfilled. i think we raided them as a stalled or promise broken. we consider it to be a broken promise of the over 500 alliterating. we treated the republicans the same way. we decided that you cannot get into a situation where you have to assess each promise and decide, it is not his fault, so we will treat it a little bit differently. we do the same for our promise features in the state. the one on governor. and gov. scott, gov. walker in wisconsin. we have been consistent about that and announced it at the start of the meters. we know people will be unhappy about that. we have to have that consistent methodology for it. host: he is the washington

bureau chief for the "st. petersburg times." thanks for joining us. we will have a week-long series taking a look at medicare. next, a discussion on the anniversary of the collapse of the soviet union. >> 32 past the hour. wall street looking to a higher opening this morning as stocks rebounded globally. pharmaceuticals, a telecommunications and utilities leading the rally. stock futures are up over 100 points. adding to the economic outlook, the nearing its end of the role of muammar gaddafi in libya. investors hoping for the restart in the flow of libyan oil in the market once muammar gaddafi leaves power. one person says if -- it is only a time and before that leader has to step down. he added that u.s. officials do

not know his whereabouts at this hour. libyan rebels say nato is planning to strike the roles -- walls of his compounds. here in the nation's capital, tourists are about to get their first look at the memorial to the rev. martin luther king jr.. the site is set to open around 11:00 a.m. this morning to kick off a week of celebration ahead of this sunday's official dedication. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> watch more video of the candidates. see what political reporters are saying it to track the latest campaign contributions with c- span to website for 2012. easy-to-use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feet and facebook updates from canada's, pa polling data, bios. mpaign2012.an.org/ca

dr. march -- >> dr. martin luther king was not a president and did not hold office. he did not have much money. while he lives, he was reviled at least as much as he was celebrated. by his own account, he was a man frequently rasht with doubt. a man not without flaws. the man who like moses before him when questioned why he had been chosen, he said it was the task of leading people to freedom. the task of dealing with the holes caused by a nation's original sin. >> watch the groundbreaking of

the market in the king jr. memorial. it will be dedicated in washington, d.c. this sunday, live on c-span. during the week, we will have coverage of other events surrounding the dedication on the c-span network. "washington journal" continues. host: editor and chief of a foreign policy is here this morning. here is this cover story. everything you need to note -- everything you know about the collapse of the soviet union is wrong. what is significant about this anniversary? >> it has are been two decades since these events. we are at a another moment of change right now. if you look at the revolutions taking place across the world,

we have another one of those global flash points occurring. we look at the last moment in time, with social change. the soviet union collapsed was sudden, startling, driven by western oriented young people that flooded into the street that lost their fear for a moment. it is also a cautionary tale. that is what we are examining over the jubilation of the apparent fall of another dictator. host: every revolution is a surprise. that is how this starts.

what are the general ideas about why the soviet union collapsed and how is foreign policy affected? guest: there are valid, important, significant factors -- whether it is the economic crisis building -- a resource intensive economy. it precipitated the weakening of the state. they were losing the war in afghanistan. many in the 1980's looked to that for the social frame of the contract in the state of the union. there were many structural explanations.

as one of the scholars pointed out, chronic illnesses -- almost all societies have these long term structural issues and problems, and they do not all lead to dramatic revolution. what led to 1991? and that is where he is very convincing. at many ways, he was at the hallmark of his power. they managed to appear to crush uprisings when gorbachev came to power. it did not seem they were in an internal or external threat. it was not the heavy-handed totalitarianism of it seemed liked they were on an introductory tours popular change, but not and earth shattering revelation. host: here is a letter from the

editor. a radical break in consciousness. a turn of ideas that led to consciousness. a change of consciousness. talk to us about this articles look at what changed in the people? guest: revolutions have accurately been described as a loss of a fear. the old order kept in place not

by heavy-handed police methods or the will of law, but because people agree to participate and playback certain sets of rules. when they change their mind and say we do not abide by those rules and will come out into the public square and demonstrate, it is hard to put that back together again. one person it made the accusation that often societies beginning a process of liberalization and reform become the most vulnerable. they loosen the screws just enough to give people a new sense of wholeness to be willing to challenge the established order in a way that the most ruthless -- flashing forward to 20 years to today in russia

where things have not quite turned out as the western young liberal reformers of 1991 would have wanted -- i found it interesting and depressing that the news out of russia today is the leader of north korea living his kingdom for a train ride up to visit with dmitry medvedev. the false hope that the revelations and reforms can make -- host: she served as washington post's assistant managing editor and held other jobs there. they are executive editor of foreign policy and editor in chief. pennsylvania, independent line. welcome to the conversation, gary. go right ahead. caller: i thank you for the

guest to come speaking the truth about russia being in the european union. [unintelligible] what every call that, his paper. we acknowledge the need for change and will strengthen socialism. guest: just to clarify for our audience, russia is not in the european union today. it is far from the european

union. there is a very different russia today than in the soviet union two decades ago. the caller accurately points out one thing which michelle -- mchale coper jeff, he was -- gorbachev was reforming rather than deforming it. the effective collapse of the soviet union was the cue it up against gorbachev, which had the process of gradual reform and power to the individual republics within the soviet union. that was his plan to maintain a form of soviet power, which did not work. the ku occurred on august 19, 1991. over the next few days, thousands of people gathering in the streets and the president of

the russian republic managed to have their support into feet the coup. it was a radical ripping off of the veil. this gradual reform was no longer sustainable that gorbachev had wanted. the soviet union was not. to make it anymore. the path of independence had to come. the official end came on december 25, 1991. host: a piece in the washington post looking back at the 20th year of the anniversary. it did anything about this surprise you? the history, the reflection of something he participated in. he writes that in the past 20

years, russia has gone through many places. he says had the things turned out differently, there could have been better economic reform. guest: gorbachev is justifiably celebrated in the u.s. for his role in the peaceful transfer of power to a new russia before a country that succeeded the soviet union. he has been a much more hated figure at home rather than being celebrated as a man that brought democracy and a peaceful transition to russia. he has been reviled as a leader who cost of the end of russian greatness. vladimir putin called the breakup as the greatest political catastrophe of the

20th-century. gorbachev is wildly unpopular. i think that is something very important to realize. the story of russia and efforts to embrace democracy over the last 20 years. it reads very differently here in the united states than it does in russia itself. host: here is what one person rights. while he may be embraced in the west, not so much in russia. guest: that is right. three times has go bush have tried to create political parties and failed in russia -- gorbachev tried to create

political parties and failed in russia. caller: it is amazing how people try to rewrite history. i read a book written by one lady. i cannot recall the title. in the book, according to her, the reagan administration was a major contributor in the downfall of the soviet union. i recall this passage where william went into balance office and said, we have a chance to bust their heads. they evaluated the soviet economy. they came to the conclusion that a large military buildup -- it would put so much financial pressure on them that they would

implode. it seems to me that an attempt is made to rewrite history and to not give this administration any credit. guest: that has become an act of conventional wisdom, certainly in the american right, that ronald reagan's military buildup helped cost the tackling and the bankruptcy, if you will. there were many pressures as we talked about earlier this morning that were bearing down in a serious way on gorbachev. in a crucial. when he launched an a form -- in a crucial time, when he launched a reform, -- i think leon is effective in the bonking this as a primary reason for the

revolution. no question this was a contributing cause. the reason is where this argument takes and disagreement. >> host: here is what one person writes on twitter. guest: i think that is part of our narrative here in the united states. i was in russia ran ronald reagan died. -- when ronald reagan died. i was calling around to ask about the impact of his legacy in the latter days of the cold war and what role he is perceived to have played inside russia. i was struck by the cancer. reagan was respected in a way for his tough words. he was seen as somebody who was transparent with the soviets

about what he wanted. that they were somebody he could do business with. there was the idea that republicans were better to do business with -- it was a widely held view among russians. ronald reagan now -- it is perceived as an internal collapse now. pa., democrats line. caller: i put on c-span before i put on my coffee. if the soviet union can collapse, america can collapse. just take this statistic. half of them are millionaires. out of 235 congress people, one- third are millionaires.

these are the people that run this country. [unintelligible] this is unbelievable what happened to this country. the people call obama socialists. they are politically nymphets. -- infants. they buy everything from china, which is the largest country in the world. guest: our caller believes in a more structural explanation as to why countries fall apart, which is to say economics. if lilliana is right, then the president does not have much to worry about in that he places much more weight on the notion of political and personal freedom as being the issue for

countries and empires. host: the war of ideas and ideals. guest: i heard that repeatedly throughout my time in russia traveling to the country. there was this notion that we wanted russia to be a normal country. and we wanted people to live a normal life. that cannot be overstated. host: new york, independent

collar. guest: starting off with a treaty where we gave them something on the eastern part, and moving the nato trip line to the baltic states, i do not know if that is cut or bad. current things such as defense missiles in chuckles slovakia -- czechoslovakia. is there anything to worry about from these people? guest: what is striking that even after 20 years, our relationship with russia is in flux. there remain some significance from the u.s. perspective and russia. the largest -- [unintelligible] the russians have a perceived

the cold war military alliance had been reborn. in the russian point of view, it has gone up to the borders. i think president obama came into office determined to resettle russian relations to take some of the venom and poison as it crept into the dealings of the bush administration. there has been much better surround sound s to the relationship under president obama. not that much has changed. washington today, the many years after kidney be seen as the leading for animation many ways. -- the many years afterwards

could be seen as the leading for renemy in many ways. economy and government is plagued by corruption. it is one of the most significant obstacles to meaningful acceptance of a full political democracy in russia today. when they see a policeman standing on a street corner, they do not see someone that is their ally but someone that may offer to pay a bribe right there on the street then be there in case of a crime. barry is so widespread that [inaudible] -- bribery is so widespread that [inaudible]

-- how many at that you have had to pay a bribery to a public traffic police officer, many said yes. host: next caller. an important aspect of the soviet union is the unification -- a germany reuniting. the powerhouse of europe is the no. 1 and no. take -- two arms exporter in the world. we could see europe for a

superpower led by germany. look at them now, they are responsible for the breakup of yugoslavia. they have a presence in the balkans and more able to achieve in world war -- the second world war. guest: in the last 10 years, germany has emerged as one of russia's most reliable backers. often, germany has come in as a mediator more often for the new russia than one might expect. host: the next call is on the democrats' line. caller: i have a question.

when the soviet union was in power, they were making aircraft carriers. there was a man on the show from the united states-canada institute of studies. eventually, russia and the united states held true -- drills in the pacific from 1994 to 1998. you can look it up. there was a lot of work done between the two nations. do you think this will be used as a tool against terrorism? guest: russia has been cooperative with what bush labeled the war on terror.

they have allowed supplies to come through the land route for afghanistan. it is probably the most significant way the u.s. is benefiting from its relationship with russia today. there have been other instances at the level of the intelligence agencies cooperating against terrorism. it is a very fraught relationship. neither the u.s. nor russia has police did down from its cold war postures and nuclear arsenals. it took 18 months of arduous negotiations to negotiate in the past the new start treaty to reduce nuclear war have levels for russia and the united states. there are still significant reductions that could be occurring.

ve been no new grounds negotiated since last year. host: susan glasser was at the "washington post." she was the co-chief of the moscow bureau with her husband and an editor. she started her career at "roll call." soviet citizens lost their fear because they had already been murdered by chernobyl, a real event. guest: i think this does go to the consciousness-changing aspect of how revolutions are born. this was a massive live by the soviet government to its own people and the rest of the world. it was not sustainable.

the radiation leaked out. i believe it was normally that first what the world know about it. it was a dramatic reminder that even in the pre-internet era, the soviets were not able to cover up the truth to their own citizens anymore. it was a dramatic moment inside of russia, ukraine, belarus. host: bob joins us on our line for independents. caller: mr. gorbachev and mr. reagan did a did start that brought us back on the brink of nuclear war between the countries. i think he would be turning over in his grave with what putin, medvedev, and yeltsin have done.

we have another caller talked about the well of our politicians. they have a stranglehold and taken the remains of the soviet union and wrested away from the people. the oligarchs of taken over the major industries for money. there is plenty of corruption and graft going back and forth. the russian people are the ones to suffer over this situation. mr. putin and medvedev are trying to keep some sort of security agreement with the rest of the world. i think mr. gorbachev would turn over in his grave if he saw how it has been looted by corruption. that needs to be taken care of with the soviets before they become a great nation again for their people. guest: it is reagan who is not with us anymore.

gorbachev is still a around but not as much of a player in his own country. i do think the caller raises an important point about the rise of big business, powerful and corrupt business. it is had a crucial role in shaping the economics and politics of russia. it is a form of institutionalized state government corruption and the business that of work together to run russia over the last decade. we saw putin re- nationalize some of the industries and resources that have been privatized. the state is intimately involved in working with these big capitalists and oligarchs in running russia today.

it is a very disempowering system. russians do not feel themselves as changing or shaping the country's destiny. they do not see themselves as having a voice or accountability. whether they work or not, those are built into the american system. it is a cautionary tale about how long it takes to build the functioning institutions of a democracy. host: there is an opinion piece for mr. gorbachev looking back on how things have unfolded. your magazine has a piece about boris yeltsin. tell us about his role in this.

your magazine has an inside he coup.te guest: the right hand man in question was a top adviser to boris yeltsin. he is right next to him in one of the famous pictures on the tank. in 1991, in many ways, that was yeltsin's finest hour. he came to the rescue of gorbachev. he said the democrats of the new russia are not going to let the soviet hard-liners come in. yeltsin came into the streets and led the movement of the people that led to the failure of the coup. what many people forget is the timing of the august 1991 coup. it was on august 19.

on august 20, a new union treaty was to be signed it would -- that would give more power to others. they had negotiated this for gorbachev -- with gorbachev for months. it never came into effect. that was the result of the coup. this powerful first-person essay in our magazine says this is why the coup was the political chernobyl of the soviet union. instead of allowing a gradual reform, it meant a radical break with the past. it sent the kgb officials out where they grabbed influence, power, and money.

vladimir putin is a former kgb lieutenant colonel. he has been in power for much of the last decade. he has been supported significantly by the remnants of the soviet security state who were never fully purged from russian public life. as a result, many people believe it has not changed. caller: i have a brief comment and question. my comment is that i do not know a great deal about russian history. i have read some of it. i have been struck by the tragedy that the bolsheviks went out. they were concerned at least nominally with the proletariat. the other groups were concerned

about the peasants. it is unfortunate that they went out. i saw something in the 1980's were andrei sakharov's wife was on "nightline. " she made a comment and i boys wondered what she meant. she said. if she made, and i have always wondered what she meant. glasnost wast was mo illusory and the russian people knew it was not real. guest: it is hard to put ourselves back into the mindset of 20 years ago. many people agreed with her that

gorbachev had been pursuing a strategy of what the russian poet called fatal half measures. that was the view of some of the most active dissidents. that is one of the reasons it did ultimately fail. once you give more expectations, there's an old russian saying that hunger groses as you start eating. the hunger for freedom grew as there was no possibility of getting it. host: what are your reflections on what is happening in libya? the headlines say the rebels are in tripoli. we see them celebrating. there's news that one of gaddafi's sons was taken by the

rebel forces. you talked about how the taste of food makes you hungry. what do you think the implications are of this movement right now? guest: it has been a dramatic year of change across the arab world. this began six months ago. this was not an overnight revolution. it has been many months in the making. it has been assisted by the western air strikes. it would not have occurred without those. it is important that we remember that. this is a level of intervention that never happened by the west in the revolutions of eastern europe. this is something we're seeing different now. it is important -- americans tend to be swept up in the

enthusiasm of people breaking shackles of a tyrant, especially one who has been is devastating to his country as colonel gaddafi has been. this is a very consequential moment for the people of libya. institution-building in society -- barack has been devastated by heavy handed, authoritarian political rule. -- iraq has been devastated by heavy-handed authoritarian political world. egypt is having an unfinished transition. it is still ruled by the military that was ruling the country when hosni mubarak was in power. and this just reading about how they are arresting the same people as before and nothing has

changed in egypt. i think a note of caution should be injected into the powerful and compelling images of celebration in the streets of libya today. host: this is from the associated press. this is the world urges gaddafi to surrender. it is time to look at the future of libya without the man who has held power there for 42 years. hundreds of libyan living abroad celebrated. leaders set in motion plans for libya's future. britain said it has frozen libya's assets. they will soon be released to let the rebels established order. france plans for an international meeting next week. italy has sent a team to the

base of benghazi to help plan the construction and the restoration of oil and natural gas production. these countries are preparing. they are putting out public statements about how they plan to have influence in this. what do you read from that? guest: this revolution would not have taken place without the active intervention of the west. the french president made this revolution arguably. there have been signs in french in the last several months thanking him and the french. it was an unusual position to be in. he was the bush of this particular national revolution. there has been serious infighting among the rebels. a few weeks ago, there was the assassination of their own military leader. that caused a serious rift

inside the movement. there's a serious question about who the new partners will be in whatever government emerges. what happens to colonel gaddafi? where does he go? he is already under icc indictment for crimes against his own people. will he be delivered up to international justice? will he be given exile? what happens to his two sons who are in rebel custody? will others be taken? what kind of revolutionary justice will be meted out in the streets over the next few days? those questions are still very much on answered. they will be some of the most pressing for the u.s. government and others over the next few weeks. host: it has been 20 years since the russian in the ussr. we started this discussion looking at foreign policy issues and about how everything

you think you know about the collapse is wrong looking at the 20th anniversary. do you think washington would have fought russia would be where it is today? what lesson did we learn from that as we look to places like libya and the arab spring? guest: it is so irrelevant that we look back at this history. -- it is so relevant that we look back to this history. things do not change as quickly as we hope. we're revolution start and not worthy and -- where a revolution starts is not where it ends. the columnist said that if you look at the history of the french revolution, it took 50 years from the initial phase in

1789 until the return to democratic principles that originally drove the revolution. there was napoleon, two wars, the restoration. it took another street revolt in 1848 until democracy came back to france. he said that by those standards, it to france 50 years. russia is only 20 years in. taking the long view. host: susan glasser, thank you for joining us. the website is foreignpolicy.com. coming up, we will start a new series will be at medicare. here is an update from c-span review. >> vice president joe biden and arrived in mongolia today. there have been reports of secret discussions between mongolians, japanese, and the u.s. government on storing nuclear waste in a mongolia. the mongolian government denies it. there was a small group opposed

to his visit. some protesters held posters saying "no nuclear waste -- go home. " he stayed just six hours in mongolia and then went on to his final stop in tokyo. turning to the situation in libya. the libyan rebel envoy to paris tells readers -- reuters there's a chance for the son of gaddafi to be tried in libya and not handed over to the hague. he said everything is possible. it is up to the national transitional council to decide. it is possible he will be handed over to the icc, but it is also possible he will not. the envoy said he is not sure of the whereabouts of muammar gaddafi. he said he would be arrested and brought to justice. the governor of puerto rico is urging people to stay home of the island cleans up from

hurricane i rain. about half of the island has been without power. it is now targeting haiti and could affect the u.s. mainland later this week. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span review. >> watched more video of the candidate -- you can watch more video of the candidates with the c-span with 64 campaign 2012 -- website for campaign 2012. we have links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states. >> dr. martin luther king was not a president of the united states. at no time in his life he hold public office. he was not a hero of foreign wars. he never had much money.

while he lived, he was reviled at least as much as he was celebrated. by his own account, he was a man frequently wracked with doubt. he was a man not without flaws. like moses before him, he questioned why he had been chosen for so arduous a task, the task of leading the people to freedom, the task of leading -- healing the wounds of the nation's original sins. >> nearly five years later, the memorial will be dedicated in washington this sunday live on c-span. during the week, we will have coverage of other events surrounding the dedication on the c-span networks.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: this week, we have a series looking at medicare. tomorrow we will look at medicare advantage. on wednesday, the topic is medicare part d. we will wrap up on thursday looking at proposals to bring down medicare costs. today we're looking at the history of the program. marilyn werber joins us now. the law was signed in 1965. was it controversial? guest: yes, health care is always controversial. the debate went on strong for a continues before it was signed into law. if jfk could not bring it into law, you know it was

controversial. when we had to turn over in 1964, we have a democratic sweep. that is when they were really finally able to -- president johnson was able to sign this into law. host: you talk about how it was debated for 10 years before it got through congress successfully. guest: the impetus was poverty. half of seniors in the 1960's were living below poverty. we're talking about the federal poverty guidelines. you have to be pretty poor to qualify. we'reay's standards, talking about $10,000 or $12,000 or less a year in income. you had to be pretty poor to qualify. we're talking about almost half

of seniors at that time qualifying as living in poverty. host: president johnson signed this into law at the truman library in missouri and enrolled president truman as the first in the fishery. -- as the first beneficiary. guest: truman started the debate going. he is the father of medicare. host: what are the big changes that have happened in medicare? guest: it is not that different today. we have added more over the years. when medicare first started, we have two parts. a and b. a was hospitalization and hospital coverage. that program was intended to get at catastrophic health care

costs. when it was created, we also have medicare part b. that is the voluntary parts of is that seniors can often too. that covers physicians' services and a thing that is not in-patient hospital -- anything that is not in-patient hospital. there was an addition of disabled people. medicare covers 47 million americans. only about 40 million of them are seniors over the age of 65. the remaining 7 million or so are disabled people. it is very different. we added them in 1972. then you move on to about 1997 and create a new program called medicare plus choice, the predecessor of the medicare

advantage program. that gave seniors an alternative to the traditional fee-for-service style medicare where you pay a percentage and the government pays a percentage of whatever doctor or hospital you choose. the newer program allows seniors to choose private health care plans. still today, this is mostly managed care. we're talking about hmo's and pco's. that allowed them to make that choice. fast-forward to 2003, the medicare modernization act was the last big change. that created the prescription drug coverage. more than half of all business

histories -- beneficiaries and taken advantage of that to get prescription drug coverage. host: we're talking about the history of medicare. let's look at the dates she highlighted in the monaco -- a moment ago. in 1962, it was expanded -- in 1972, it was expanded to include disabled people under 65. the following year, prescription drug coverage was repealed. guest: medicare does not have limits on out-of-pocket spending. if you are a senior and have a particularly bad year with something that costs a lot of money, there is no limit on what you can spend. the islam was intended to put a

cap on spending -- of the law was intended to put a cap on spending so you would not go broken in health care costs. it's all the people needed prescription drug coverage even then. -- it saw that people needed prescription drug coverage even then. the problem was that there was a group of people very concerned they would have to pay a little bit more to get this extra coverage. it was not that large of a population that oppose the law. nevertheless, it was a very vocal group. of one ofon the car

the leading members of the house who pushed for the law. it was a big deal. within about a year-and-a-half, it was repealed. it never went into effect. look at thetake a meeting with the senior citizens that are angry about the tax that would have raised the cost. >> he raced across the street, still pursued by angry senior citizens. >> he is supposed to represent the people and not himself! >> inside the car, he could go nowhere for a few minutes as the crowd surrounded him. finally, he got out of the car and walked down the block, diverting the crowd away from the car. >> i do not think they

understand what the government is trying to do for them. i do not think they understand what is going on. >> moments later, his driver pulled into a gas station. he jumped in and was gone. >> that was the congressman in 1989 meeting with citizens curious about the catastrophic health care law that would have raised taxes on medicare beneficiaries. guest: i wonder if they knew at the time that they would be getting rid of prescription drug coverage and how long it would be before congress again got the point where it could give seniors some sort of prescription drug coverage. i wonder if they could have seen into the future whether that would happen that day. host: in 1997 medicare advantage was enacted. in 2003, congress added prescription drug benefits. our guest is the special

correspondent and special fellow at kaiser health news. if you would like to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call. let's get to the telephones. paul is on the independents' line. caller: and the medicare should be expanded for everybody. there should be a premium placed on income. no. people would be healthier and pay a higher premium based on their income. it would be solvent. -- younger people who are healthier would pay a higher premium based on income. it would be solvent. the best medical system is the va system. i am a retired veteran. there are no claim forms to file. there is no chance of fraud.

$200 billion is wasted you are on medicare fraud and waste. that would be eliminated. the doctors are paid a good salary. nobody is making false claims. we could have a medicare premium, but there would not be any claim forms. we would have a low-cost system that would be high quality. the va system was rated the best. guest: there are many people who would like nothing better than to see what style system can is what people in washington called single payer. democrats have stopped pushing for this for the most part. they realize that most republicans will not go for this. some democrats will not go for it either. they have bought away from trying to push for the medicare for all style system.

the one. y have backed away from trying to push for the medicare for all stall system. we are seeing a lot of changes in the health care law passed last year. high-income seniors will be paying more for their medicare. we're talking about seniors about $85,000 in income and more. they will be paying more in their premiums. they already are in certain parts of medicare. we are expanding this. we're seeing a lot more of this. this is something we can expect to see more of in the future. the financial system continues to be tough. medicare spending continues to grow.

i think we will see more of this. host: today we're focusing on the history of medicare and the basic fundamentals. people over 65 qualify. people under 65 with certain disabilities qualify. 48 million people are in bold. we're getting those numbers from the 2011 medicare trustees' report. lee in maryland, a republican. caller: i never hear talk about the military-style medical court in this country -- corps in this country. why could we not have that to train doctors and nurses? it would allow us to create a school for doctors. nowadays to be a doctor, you have to pay a billion dollars to become one. everybody says they are paying a lot to be in the medical system.

we could create some one to give us medical supplies. it would be just the way our soldiers take care of our needs. we could profit off of the bottom of it. we could put that money back in the economy. i am unemployed. we could start this country back up. we're being sucked dry by the doctors and nurses. if you go see the doctor, is $200 for one hour. guest: it sounds like you and the first caller agree on quite a bit. the problem is political. it is also an ideological. you have two different viewpoints. this split's fairly closely along party lines. democrats would like to see more of a national plan, something more standardized by the government.

on the republican side, if you have a group that is very committed to private insurance and competition. because of these is the logical differences, i think it is unlikely we could end up with that kind of a system. host: mary writes that there are two different types of medicare. guest: it is very complicated. right now, there are four different parts. a is hospitalization. that has to do with anything in- patient hospital. in the working world, this is what you see taken out of your paycheck. this is the payroll tax. it is up 1.45% of your payroll that goes to pay for medicare

benefits trees -- been beneficiaries in this hospitalization program. your employer matches that in the system. the new health care law will increase that tax for wealthier americans. those workers over about $200,000 in income a year will pay extra, almost 1%. then you have part b. that is physician coverage. that is going to the doctor. it is different from part a. a is what you get when you turn 65 or qualify for disability. b is different. is a volunteer system.

you do not have to do it. just about everybody does because it is a good deal. it is even out-patient hospital services. that is financed differently. it is financed from general revenue. it is financed by a premium. the average premium is a little over $100. it is more for higher income seniors. the higher income level for seniors is of little lower. we're talking about $85,000 for an individual. you could end up paying something closer to $150 a month. it could go up to $350 a month. those are the two original parts of medicare. the writer is talking about medicare part c. that is medicare advantage. that is private insurance.

the government has a lot less to do with that. you opt for the traditional for part -- or part c. that is private insurance. it could be an hmo, ppo, or other program. the program is going to have changes. it was changed in 2003 as part of the same law that created the prescription drug benefit. the republicans at the time wanted to drive people to the program. because it is private insurance, they believe competition would lower costs and gives seniors better care. they decided the government would pay more for seniors that participated in that program

than if seniors participated in the traditional fee-for-service program. it turned out to be about 13% more. as a result, people in the medicare advantage program typically get better benefits. they may get benefits that a and b do not cover like eyeglasses or hearing aids. they typically have lower premiums. in some cases, it is zero. after the health care law from last year, that is changing. the differential between what is paid for the two different programs is going to become more equal. almost 1/4 of all medicare beneficiaries who have medicare advantage could see a reduction in defense, higher premiums. it could see a reduction in

benefits and higher premiums. we will definitely see higher premiums in all of medicare. it will be a little different moving forward. a lot of people in medicare do not know which one they have. it is hard to tell. host: let's look at the spending. a costs $185 billion. this is in 2010. guest: medicare on the whole is heating up almost 15% of the federal budget. it is big. it is expected to grow by almost

6% a year through 2020. that is after you take into consideration some of the cutbacks and savings that were passed as part of last year's health care law. we're still talking about growing at 6% a year. host: we have a call from new york on the new york -- democrats line. caller: the average life expectancy was 65. it is kind of a joke. race covers other things besides the color of your skin. medicare is meant to appease us like we're stupid. my mother collected it. thank god she has private insurance because she has to pay $100 of her social security. they are saying that you caught up with us.

in 1965, you would have been dead by the time you collected. it was a game. now you can collect it and they are trying to keep us from getting it. they have plenty of money for the military. they are gamin gus. -- they are gaming us. if they're going to do that, they should give us their benefits that we paid for with our taxes. guest: there are discussions about the difficulty congress is having raising the debt ceiling. these are the discussions coming up. it looks like every. is going to get a cup. it is not just health care or military. it looks like it will affect everything. the costs of medicare for a very high -- are very high. democrats and republicans agree that something needs to be done

to lower the cost of the program. you also mentioned the retirement age being 65. you are correct. when medicare was created, life expectancy was much lower. therefore, if you did not have that many people claiming benefits for as long as we do now. that is why one of the options on the table for saving money is raising the eligibility age. there is a lot of talk about raising it to 67. a year ago, we only heard republicans talking about this. right now, we're starting to hear democrats as well. this says to me that is much more of a possibility for the future than it had beengogogogo. host: joe is in pennsylvania. caller: nancy pelosi said the

only way we will know what is in its is if we have to find out what is in it. it is it true that medicare -- obamacare wife out $500 billion in medicare? is that true? guest: that as a whole nother can of worms. that was a claim in the midterm election. republicans did very well with that claim. it is not exactly true. there were some cutbacks in medicare, but to say that $500 billion was cut from medicare is not true. the program is still growing.

cutting 5 $1 billion sounds like you sliced the program -- cutting $500 billion cells and you slice the program and it is getting less. that is not true. host: talk to us about the reluctance by some providers to deal with medicare. some will not take medicare patients. guest: this is definitely a problem. traditionally, private insurance pays doctors the most of any paper. then comes to medicare. then comes medicaid. every time we talk about saving money in medicare, we talk about cutting payments to providers -- doctors and hospitals. the health care law does make some straightforward cuts to hospitals. we have had some physicians'

cuts. they were supposed to take affect every year. every year, congress has stopped them from taking effect. we do not have a solution. every year, doctors are worrying that if congress does not step in, they will get cuts. if they let it happen, it could be to 20% of what medicare pays them. many physicians are very concerned cannot make ends meet. the question is whether to take it or not. if you are an internist, you probably want to take it. how are you going to slice that large of the population out of your patient base? it is getting harder and harder. physicians continue to say that if it gets worse, they will not be able to take medicare any longer. the health care law from last year does increase payments for

primary care providers. this has more to do with medicaid, but they are trying really hard to recognize there is a big differential between physician practices. i mean from specialty to specialty. some specialties are doing just fine. others, especially the family practice and internists are having the most trouble. host: is it more about the reimbursement rate? guest: the people work is very difficult. we hear the complaint from providers -- the paper work is very difficult. we hear the complaint from providers for the beneficiaries region or the beneficiaries -- we hear the complaint from the providers and the beneficiaries. ar complaints about the

paperwork. i am not sure it is different from the private sector. host: let's go to john and florida. he is a republican column. caller: in washington cut does not cut anything. it just cuts the rate of increase. the republicans were right if you want to be truthful about the way people talk about cuts in washington. i am glad to. if the projection of what it costs. that projection is 10 times with a projected in 1965. we were supposed to be down around $50 billion. it is the same thing with social security. people do not want to talk about

math because there is no way to lie about it. i have had the pleasure of cleaning out a few houses in my time. i came across some bills for my tonsils in 1965. the co-pay back then was $20. my sisters went into the hospital in the 1960's. there were both charged $10 each for having their tonsils removed. i ran across a couple of bills were if the doctor came to your house, it was $10. if you went to see him, it was $5. it is amazing to see how small those bills were prior to medicare. i think the reason is because once the government gets involved, people do not have to pay the true cost. when people do not have to pay the true cost and you have another party paying your bill, that is driving of the cost of medicine. that is another thing no one else wants to talk about. why is it costing more?

what is the real reason? guest: whether it is medicare or private insurance, democrats and republicans would agree that is a real problem when you have a third-party payer. if you have to go in and pay the whole bill yourself, you will shop. if you are buying a tv, you will compare prices at three different stores. the way things work with insurance, medicare or medicaid, or private insurance, someone else is paying for it. it may be your employer. people do not have a good understanding of what their employer is paying for them. there is widespread agreement that this is very difficult. it causes people to use for health care and not really know

what health care is costing them. just getting what they need and not shopping around. this is the impetus for republicans who have been pushing for health savings accounts. you have a catastrophic insurance plan, but you have an account. you can take that money and do what ever you want with it. you can decide which hospital to go to for your help replacement and which physician -- for your hip replacement and which physician to sea. everybody agrees is better to get consumers involved and get transparency. transparency is a problem right now. we do not have a good enough system to allow people to compare prices. it is better than it was five

years ago. if you call around to hospitals to see which one will give you a better price on your hip replacement, good luck. the doc fix is what i was referring to earlier. we were talking about how congress looks to reduce spending. they look to cut the doctors and hospitals. the doc fix was a cut made years ago. it had an unintended consequence. this is not within meant to do. congress did not mean to cut as this laws much was going to do it. as a result -- this was an ongoing thing. it was a complicated formula that would require these reductions every year going forward.

democrats and republicans agree you cannot cut physicians 20% in a year. every year, sometimes twice a year, they stepped in and fix the problem. they add a little bit more money. it is costly. the problem is they have not fixed the problem permanently. the problem continues to grow. the longer you wait, the more expensive it is to fix. host: mark is in stark -- margaret is in sacramento on the democrats' line. caller: my husband is retired military. when he turned 65, we discovered he had to enroll in medicare part b to qualify for his ri-care -- tri-care.

why is that? it seems like paul ryan wants to give $6,000 vouchers in replacement for medicare part b. i wonder if people go how far that would go. it would go a little towards medical coverage nowadays. you had a republican talking about it. before he realized he was live on tv, he said good luck getting something for that. that is all i have. thank you, c-span. guest: i do not know the answer to the question about the military and party. i apologize for that. paul ryan is the republican house budget committee chairman.

he had his own plan for a long time. then it more if into what was passed by congress -- it morph ed into what was passed by congress as part of the house budget. it is a non-binding resolution. it says we would like to work towards it. that did not become law. nevertheless, it got a lot of discussion. it started a lot of discussions about how medicare might be changed. the part of the plan you are talking about is either his original plan that as vouchers giving seniors a certain amount of money. it was not handing them cash or a check, but it must be used to buy a private insurance plan. i interviewed paul ryan.

i asked him if this amount of money would be enough for seniors to actually buy insurance. his answer was, in some cases yes in some cases no. some people would probably have to put in more money to be able to fight the plan -- buy a plan. he said it would take work. he said they would have to figure out if there was a way to get more money in there. the point was to reduce medicare spending. that is different from what the house of oxley passed as part of its budget. that was a concept that has been talked about since then. it would be a formula whereby medicare would pay a certain percentage of the seniors premium so that the senior could

buy private insurance. instead of being a set a chunk of money, premium support would be support for the premium. they would help with a certain percentage of the premium costs. host: daniel from minnesota is on the independents' line. caller: am i on live tv? i believe medicare starts out with a doctor-patient relationship. the ultimate issues with health care -- i feel everybody has a right to health care. as an independent person, we should own all of the hospitals

that is financed through the government. that would build more hospitals, much more employment, and much better health care services for old and young. it is like fannie mae. you buy a house and retire and then you die. guest: we do have some public hospitals. it is a very different system than if all hospitals republic. currently public hospitals have a tough time of it. they are publicly financed. this is where a lot of the uninsured people will wind up getting their care. the hospital has a lot of uncompensated care so the government steps in. a lot of state spending goes to public hospitals. it is a tough system.

these public hospitals find it hard to make ends meet. it would be very different if all hospitals were public. my guess is we will never see that happen. there would be a lot of opposition to doing that. it's back to ideologies. -- it gets back to ideologies. republicans want to move towards private health plans and hospitals because they want to build competition, lower costs, and improve quality through competition. that is the way they see it all ideologically. i think there's a poor chance of that happening. host: what kind of deductibles and premiums to beneficiaries have to pay? guest: medicare is a complicated program. if you