this morning "washington journal on," jeffrey buchanan talks about violence insurgents and how they could affect the planned troop drawdown in iraq. the president of the national right to work committee on his group's fight to pass right to work legislation on the state and federal level. "washington journal" is next.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." "many economists agree that regulation comes with undenyable costs that can affect workers. factories may close because of the high cost of clean-up, or owners may relocate to countries

with weaker regulations. but many experts say that the effect should be assessed through a tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors. others say the job losses occur for different reasons like a stagnant economy. as companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created. various regulations such as the clean air act, have resulted in far less costs than industrial executives initially feared. for example, when the environmental protection agency first proposed amendments to the clean air act aimed at reducing acid rain caused by power plant

emissions, the electric utility industry warned the cost would be $7.5 billion and thousands of jobs. but the cost has been closer to $1 billion." that is environmental regulations are part of house republicans to-do list. they will have a vote to streamline regulations about 10 of them, when they return this week. let's go to bob in new jersey. bob, what do you think the impact is on jobs? caller: i think it is incon shunnable -- inconscionable. that they could put people out of work for a tree? host: why do you think that's

going to happen? caller: they want to protect a fish or something. one way to lower gas prices, too, is with the commodity traders. here's a guy trading hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil, and there is no way he will take delivery on it. so if you want to trade these commodities, you have to have means to take deliveries. also they usually trade on margins, and it is usually less than 10% down. if they raise that margin to 50% down, believe me, you would see gas prices plummet. host: so impact of regulations on jobs. do you think it is the government's responsibility to make sure the air is clean? without clean air, you will have a rise in asthma, things like that. what do you think? caller: they are shutting down coal plants left and right across this country.

if that happens and the price of electricity skyrockets, people can't afford things now. you will see a revolution. things have to be rolled back. this is terrible. host: greg in ohio. caller: that you for taking the call. that's what it is. they are shutting down coal plants. wasn't it last year that 29 coal miners down there were killed because they were breaking regulations? why don't you do something on what the justice department is doing on that situation? this is the big lie, and the media is letting them get away with it. we need these regulations. i could go on and tell you other stories where regulations should be. they don't want to let firemen and policemen have collective bargaining. i have a friend i went to school with.

i am in my 80's. he had liver cancer. he never drank a drop of booze in his life, but people don't know what these firemen can get into when they go into these fires with the chemicals that combuft and screw up things. we need the regulations in these people, just avarice and greed that is telling them, we don't need regulations. they want to go back to the gilded age of the 1890's when there weren't any regulations at all? give me a break. host: let's go to phyllis in kentucky. caller: i think the government should regulate the e.p.a., whatever it is that regulates the air the atmosphere. what is emitted into the air

from cars, from factories it goes up. unless it escapes and goes into the universe it is going to come back down. host: even if it has an adverse impact on jobs? caller: yes. what is the point of working these jobs when you are going to make the people that's working now die early and the ones that -- the offsprings of those ones, they are going to die early too. it is not that we are not going to have modern technology to help take care of these diseases. but yet and still if we had modern technology and less people with asthma and other type of lung diseases that they will get from breathing in the smog and all kind of other things that are in the air we

could live longer. then maybe they can talk about i want to -- i want to talk about another subject. cutting social security and something like that. host: the problem with cutting the cost of regulation, is that there have been few studies after such costs have been imposed. researching the amendment to the clean air act from 1972 to 1987, he found those companies lost almost 600,000 jobs compared to what would have happened without the regulations. but mr. greenstone has has also conducted research showing that clean air regular layings have reduced infant mortality and increased housing prices, and indeed, many economists argue that job losses should not be considered in isolation. they say these regulations have

reduced hospital zations and -- hospitalizations and produced other health benefits. they warn that 18 of the 100 cement plants in the country could shut down due to emissions, resulting in the direct loss of jobs. another study shows a small direct loss of jobs adding in companies that make cleaner equipment. let's hear from a republican in jacksonville, florida. caller: i have a question.

how is it that we want to balance the budget and cut back, but at the same time we're actually creating jobs? host: why is that important to you? explain that, please. caller: the reason it is important to me, just like right now, the president is saying we want to balance the budget and create jobs, but if you balance the budget, you are going to lose thousands of jobs. because balancing the budget means you are going to do away with jobs. if you want to create jobs, that means you will still have to put a source of financing in place so we can create jobs no matter how you do it. host: jamie on the independent line, go ahead. caller: i would like to talk about regulatory arbitrage.

the plants in china don't have to put up with the environmental regular layings the labor regulations, the incredible business regulations. and their costs are lower, so we buy stuff from them. but we have to make things in this country. it is so frustrating. host: and you think lawmakers are not family with that term? caller: they are not talking about it. host: jamie what do you do for a living? caller: i'm self-employed. i do i.t. host: is there a direct link between what you do and regular layings in your industry? caller: not necessarily in my industry. but the general business climate certainly affects me. and my wife and i have two young adult children, and it is affecting them, too.

the business climate in this country is a thing that has to be improved. congress can't actively improve it. they can improve it by getting out of the way. they don't seem to understand it. no one is talking about it. host: speaking of congress, they returned this week after the august break. they have a to-do list. i want to begin with this headline in the "washington times." "more lawmakers forgo town halls to avoid angry voters. too much yelling, not enough listening. according to the roll call, which kept a count lawmakers held little more than 500 town hall meetings." we covered some town hall meetings over this august

recess. if you go to c-span.org, you can find the list of them there. and then here is the capitol hill section of "the washington times." "congress unpopular. twid -- divided. after a five-week break, congress tries to ease the recession and boost an economy that is barely growing. president obama goes first thursday night with a speech to lawmakers and a prime-time national television audience." they are expecting to hold their first meeting thursday as they begin work on a long-term plan to cut the budget. "federal money for highway

construction jobs runs out two weeks later without separate legislation." then you've got disaster funds in the fema budget. here's the headline in the "baltimore sun." "obama yesterday said the congress' hands are not tied. without mentioning anyone by name obama dismissed that approach. disaster approach he suggested isn't a suggestion of washington pork. obama could have visited any other states that endured flooding, but obama might have special appeal to the election-minded white house. obama has seen his approval rating dip." then the editoral section of "the baltimore sun" says, their view is they should not crip --

cripple fema's ability to aid. a battle launched similar to one on the f.a.a. when it comes to the gas tax that is in "the washington post." also front page of "the new york times" has this story. "the agency is so low on cash, it will not be able to make a 5.5 billion dollar payment due this month, and they have to shut down entirely this winter unless congress takes emergency action to stablize its finances. it says according to the postmaster general, if congress does not act we will default."

host: we go next to john, a republican. caller: obama is trying to switch the e.p.a. regulations around on a dime like this.

if he gets elected after he gets elected, if that's possible he'll turn around and throw these around for re-election. he's running on a record he can't defend. don't believe everything that comes out of his mouth. nothing he has ever said has come true. host: all right. the environmentalists according to a front page "the washington

times" there has been environmental impact. they are encouraging businesses by a state department report last week on the $7 billion keystone pipeline that they will back a project through the nation's mid section to transport oil from canada through the gulf of mexico. let's hear from elizabeth in mount pleasant, texas. go ahead, elizabeth. caller: you know what bothers me? i sit here and i listen to you all, and i wonder, where is the

common man? where is the humanity in all of this? host: do you think there is a way to compromise on both? caller: there should be a way to compromise. i mean, the government is out of control, but congress is out of control. and the people who are getting hurt are united states people. and my heart actually bleeds for my country right now because i have never seen as big a mess. host: you can send a tweet if you would like to. the president is heading to detroit later today. jason, what do you want to hear

from him? caller: it is probably going to be more of the same. there is no impact of jobs on regular layings. we have regulations for years and years and years and there was no lack of jobs. i want to know what water or what food or what air are the republicans eating or drinking because without regulations corporations with their greed will get into the financial industry. we need regulations for these greedy people. it is almost like they need a babysitter. host: let me get your reaction to this. this is "the washington times." "a gallup survey showed

americans favor economic development over environmental protection at a rate of 54% to 36%, the widest margin since gallup first asked the question in 1984." so it looks like the times have changed on this issue. caller: well, the american people are very uninformed. they go by headlines without getting information. i don't know where america's common sense has gone, but it seems we are a nation of thieves right now. we seem to have no understanding of the real policies or what's really going on behind the headlines.

host: all right. let me give you an update on the situation in libya. "jihadists among the libyan rebels revealed plans last week on the internet to subvert the post-muammar gaddafi government and create a new government." that's front page of "the washington times." "the new york times" has this story. "china selling arms tom muammar gaddafi. in the final days of his control, chinese state companies offered to sell his government large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition in errant violation

of the united nations sanctions ." let's hear from lee in dallas, texas. let me ask you this before we get your comments. what do you think the legacy of governor rick perry is in texas on regulations and jobs? caller: i believe there has been a natural gas hike, like h.r. fed 290. we can reduce our deficit create millions of jobs and have cleaner air by using our own natural resources. we are sitting on 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas if we -- yet we don't take advantage of this.

the thing i know about rick perry, he's against natural gas. host: ok. courtesy of the museum in washington "perry running romney ragged. it says mitt romney's loss is perry's gain. a late starter is not only stealing supporters but also big-money backers from the g.o.p. frontrunner. just look at california. four years ago sloweder was a runningmate. this year he dismisses romney as disorganized. the inflention head of the -- the influential head of the

orange county g.o.p. recently co-hosted a meet and greet for perry and called him a leader with authentic vision." that's front page of "the houston chronicle." we covered mitt romney in new hampshire. that is here at c-span.org, if you want to watch the whole thing. "at new hampshire tea party rally, romney speaks and sparks do not fly." "there were clashes. mr. romney delivered a lively version of his standard stump speech. freedomworks also organized a protest before mr. romney's speech yesterday but attendance drew little more than a dozen people." again, we covered that speech.

go to c-span.org if you want to see it in its entirety. "the washington post" had a story about michelle bachmann and how her constituents view her. some say she has been unresponsive to their needs. we're talking about the impact of regulations on jobs. what do you think? caller: well, i think it is disastrous when i see it in the health care field. they have too many regulations. and the specific example is the high mall apractice -- mal practice that doctors take. the peer review has disappeared in areas such as mortality because of this malpractice and

doctors don't not hire other assistants in the hospital. what they need is a mal occurrence fund to give to people if there is a bad outcome. that's the best example i can give you. it is like trying to play a football game with 20 umpires in the field. unfortunately, it is not a better game. for the umpires, it looks like a better outcome. unfortunately, it doesn't resemble a game. i think they need to do the demographics. host: here's an e-mail from bob that says "while environmental regulations kills jobs, the lack of regulations kills people. which do you prefer?

the republican party has proved without a doubt that they are the anti--jobs party indebted to corporations over the american people. i ask boehner where are the jobs?" you can e-mail us at journal@ c-span.org. "i used to travel with my dad and we would see the companies turn streams orange and blue in the 1950's." let's go to our caller. caller: good morning. i'm from vista. i'm a democrat. i'm going to take a different

tact. i'm a democrat. i'm saying we should do everything the republicans want. apparently they don't mind risk ing their own children's health with bad air bad water anything like that. apparently they want jobs. they don't matter if they pollute. and they are doing the right thing, which is basically to send all those jobs to china because the chinese don't care about pollution. we should also sell off the last 5% of what the people in this country own the 95% that's owned by the rich, we should just give them the rest of the 5% and just have them put us up in some barracks or something like that. host: so i detect a little czar chasm there. caller: i'm afraid i have to be sarcastic. what's happening to this country is we're trying to sell it down the river, trying to trade dirty

jobs for dirty air. if people don't believe that this world is getting dirtier and we are somehow responsible, then how does a person not be sarcastic? host: let me get your reaction and see if there is a middle ground here. here is a tweet. "when the country is bankrupt, unemployment is up, inflation is up and the dollar is on the verge of imploding." caller: then let's work for 30 cents an hour. host: ok. let's go to the next caller. caller: you know, the whole thing about regulations i have been recently going back to school here, and a lot of people

don't understand a lot of these regulations are coming out of -- you need to get the government out of the way. we lost all those jobs.

they went to south america. all those people down in louisiana, they don't have jobs now.

>> when people work they spend money, and that's what gets the economy up and going. i don't think it can shrink on the left or the right. i don't think they can have a problem that gives tax breaks to the people that got us into trouble in the first place. i'm hopeful. i'm very hopeful that the president is going to put a big program out there and that he's going to fight very hard for it. host: back to your calls. david in connecticut. caller: can you hear me?

host: we can. caller: i want to preface my statements, i am a complete failure. i couldn't finish high school. i went to work in the woods in 1978, and i finally bought a sawmill. i want to give you an example of the regulations. in connecticut you have to have a license to cut logs in connecticut. you have to have continuing education to keep the license. you have to have permits. you have to wait for approval. the state wants to know how much it costs. they want to know what you make, how much you were paid for the product. they want to know who you told it to. and all of these regulations, they weren't necessary. the only need for the regulations was because the private sector now has to provide job security for the state employees. i contacted my state representative and she said if

people don't like the way the legislature runs business, they can vote them out. a lot of people i know want to get the hell out of this country. i don't know if i'm still on the air or not. i turned the tv on. host: yes david, we're listening. caller: i like obama. i think he's doing the best he can. i'd like to see ron paul and buddy romer get in there as a team. caller: i wanted to stick up for regulations. my uncle died of bess -- asbestos exposure.

as early as the 20th century we knew asbestos could give you cancer. it took us until the 1980's and 1990's to regulate it because companies don't have to follow environmental standards. but the downside is that american people get cancer. cancer rates are 65% higher without regulations. in areas where they have natural gas, the rates of breast cancer are the highest in the country. i'm studying environmental law right now and in the early 20th

century there was no regulations, the quality of the meat was so sub standard, people were getting sick. so they finally had to regulate the meat industry. "silent spring" was written about the affects these toxins have on mammals. host: ok. we'll have to leave it there. executive plans for growth. the piece says this "so far business leaders have been standing firm with executives using fewer firms for hiring. this according to meetings held by financial analysts. hiring does not seem poised to take off. executives speak of the same

steady job creation that has been underway for months and continuing through the end of the year. the private sector continued adding jobs slowly. after adjusting for workers on strike the report reveals that private employers added a modest net sum of 62000 jobs." the piece goes on to say that executives are planning to go forward with their growth plan, but at a slow rate. if you are interested in that piece, that is the front page of "the washington post" this morning. a piece written by neil irwin. and "the christian science monitor." an article about finding work. "which way to the jobs?"

that's the latest story in "the christian science monitor. "high unemployment will last. and this is why. to reduce unemployment the economy must create enough new jobs to absorb the existing out-of-work and entrants into the labor market. shierholz has calculated how many jobs would be needed to lower unemployment to 5% over five years. her estimate is 16.9 million. that's an average of 282000 jobs a month. " that's a piece this morning in "the washington post." also here's the opinion section of "the washington times." "happy leisure day" they say is

a day about taking a break from work not celebrating unions. we'll talk about right-to-work states, nonunion states, and we'll get a perspective on that as well. next the impact of regulations on jobs. caller: yes, the problem that we have is that the government wants to regulate carbon dioxide. it will cost lots of money to regulate that. in fact, there's not a whole lot of technology to do that. in fact, it is going to cause more jobs to disappear if they start regulating carbon dioxide.

caller: basically i think the business community seems to be complaining a lot about regulation. regulation is needed. not over-regulating, but it is definitely needed. so what i suggest is the government should probably partner with small business and try to get big business to step out of the way. and show how we can work in peace with labor unions organize labor, and do it right. any profits from an organization that's traded can go to the american people. host: ok.

our next caller. caller: i would like to make a chance -- please give me a chance to make my comments. when you deregulate laws this is absolutely ridiculous. those laws were fought for with trial and error over many years starting back from the late 1900's where the garment industry had lack of regulation, buildings were burning with people in it. then you come up into the 1960's, like the young lady that called before, a couple phone calls, about environmental pesticide in the landescape getting into our food. remember the d.d.t. situation? this is in the 1970's.

the meat industry had to do some regulation there because of -- you know a food scare when it came to bacteria and all sorts of -- not taking precautions. when these people talk about deregulating the law? the government is for the people. the government is what makes it for the people. host: ok. got to move on. also, a program note. the 10th anniversary of 9/11 is approaching. c-span will begin a week of programming, and hearing those affected by the terrorist attack. this week american history tv airs on c-span. people who were at the white house, at the capitol at the pentagon or in the skies above on that day. also on the anniversary weekend saturday we will be live at 12:30 eastern time with the dedication of flight 93.

sunday we will be live starting at 8:30 eastern time on all the c-span networks. a little bit about those oral histories. if you go to our website at c-span.org you can see the breakdown of these oral histories. on tuesday, dick cheney. on thursday rear admiral david thomas who was in the pentagon on 9/11, and major heather penny, one of the first f-50 plots who scrambled from the pentagon on 9/11. so go to c-span.org.

sean in orlando, florida. caller: good morning gretta. host: good morning. caller: the way i see it, it started in 2008. we started with a recession, and then one day in the middle of a recession

president biden. on c-span3 honoring those who lost their lives on 9/11.

"9/11 remembered" this weekend on the c-span networks. >> in 1844 henry clay ran for puts -- president of the united states and lost. he's one of the 14 featured this week on "the contenders." henry clay's kentucky home friday at 8:00 eastern. host: joining us this morning from baghdad rear admiral buchanan. troops will be scheduled to leave in september. is that going to happen? guest: thank you for having me

on your show today. our countries signed a bilateral agreement in 2008 and that established conditions for the forces to operate in the years 2009 2010 and 2011. one of the requirements to that security agreement was that our forces would transition to a civilian authority by the end of this year. we are on track to do exactly that. i think the key idea here is that represents a transition. it is not an end of the u.s. relationship with iraq. it is a transition to a more mature relationship under the leadership of ambassador jim jeffrey and the embassy here. host: so what needs to happen between now and december 31 2011 for that to be a reality? guest: we have some things we're doing as far as transition to actual missions that the

military has been performing. for example, a police professionalization program. in accordance with many details and well synchronized plans we are transitioning that over to the responsibility of the state department and the embassies. the bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement will take full responsibility for the mission and use their experts to co will take full responsibility for the mission and use their experts to continue to work with forensic experts for the iraqi forensics lab, police training, law enforcement professional ization, that sort of thing. go ahead. host: i'm going to stop you there, if i could and then we will go onto the rest of the things that need to happen. are you saying that the state department is going to be training the police? guest: absolutely. in fact, many of the experts that the military has been working with over the years to

help train iraq's policemen, the judicial authorities, et cetera have actually been civilians as you would expect. the law enforcement professionals from the united states, the united kingdom, a number of countries, who have been working here under a military chain of command, they represent the true experts of our country to help professionalize the police force. >> host: and the other items that need to happen before troops can leave december 31? guest: if you think about it we have a lot of troops here a lot of equipment and a lot of spaces. we have to -- we are on track and will stay on track to continue those efforts. but fex -- for example, at the height of the surge the u.s. had responsibility for five different bases in iraq.

at the start of new dawn a year ago, we were down to 92. as of today, we're down to 43. so we're on track to continue to transition those to the responsibility of the iraqi government. we have to redeploy equipment. this is the sort of new dawn -- we have redeployed 1.4 million large pieces of equipment. we have a little less than a million to go, but all is on track for that. lastly is our personnel numbers. we kept our troop strength fairly constant since the start of new dawn between 45000 and 50,000. we wanted to do that to maintain as much flexibility as we could for the unknown, but also because we had a lot of work to get done under new dawn and in iraqi security forces. so in the less than four months we have left those troops will need to redeploy. host: we are talking with major

jeffrey buchanan. you can tell there is a bit of a delay between me asking questions and the general being able to hear and respond, so we ask that you be a little patient here. we also have a special line set aside this morning set aside for iraq veterans. 202-737-2579. we want to hear from you as well. what is the role of u.s. troops in iraq right now? guest: well, right now we have three major tasks. we're still undertaking part of civility operations. the first is to advise, train and quip iraqi security forces. they have had to leave security in the country since last summer. by any measure they have been doing a good job. they still have room for growth. they have need to continue to

improve. we have helped continue to professionalize their forces and set them up for success in the future to better meet all of their needs. we as we continue to conduct partners, what we call partner counterterrorism operations with the iraqi security forces. in particular our special operations forces have been working directly with theirs to employ intelligence needs, to capture terrorists, for example and bring them to justice. and then the last task we have had on the military side is that our military forces have continued to secure, protect and support the civilian workers that come from the u.s. mission in iraq from various departments. this is including state but also commerce and justice and homeland security as they work to build in a civil capacity. those are the tasks we have been

taking on this year. we have made a lot of progress. there is room for more to be done in each of those areas. but with only a little less than four months to go until we transition, our efforts will shift more and more to those transition efforts. host: sir, if you could talk about your title, "strategic effects director" what does that mean? if i could add on to that, what are your concerns after you help troops leave and the level of insurgency? guest: let me start with the first question. when i came here a little more than a year ago my title -- i wore two hats as the director of strategic effects. the first was to work with the embassy in helping build iraq's civil capacity for example the development of the oil sector, the economic sector, electricity agricultural those sorts of things to support the embassy in their efforts to improve that.

and the second aspect was that i also wore as hat as the director of strategic communications. in particular, as an example, i served as a spokesman for u.s. forces in iraq. i still continue to serve in that capacity but most of the tasks that i had working with iraq's civil capacity development has transitioned from when we start the military lead to an embassy lead. they have -- i hate to use this sports analogy, but they have the ball and are running with it. we did supply some support. to your second question, i think iraq has a particular focus on security. the security situation here remains a complex one. i would group the concerns into three areas. first, al-qaeda. the second iranian-backed

military groups. the third is basic criminality. the security situation is better than it has been in the past. i've seen this from my own experience. i'm fairly typical of most of the military people here. i'm here in my fourth tour. i have have served most every year since 2003, with the exception of 2007. if you look at where we were during the height of the surge four years ago, we averaged 145 attacks per day. we are down to about 15 attacks per day now. it continues to head in the right direction. it is getting better over time. it remains a dangerous place.

host: let's go to our first caller in tulsa, oklahoma. caller: i am a united states history teacher. from your perspective having been in iraq for four tours what do you think are the most important things that my students need to know about what is happening in iraq right now and understanding that developing a republic is best? and where do you see iraq in 20 to 25 years? guest: i would like to say first off there are a lot of unknowns on that projection into the future. first of all, as a teacher, you have an incredible impact on our

country, so thanks for what you do and what you do every day. i would like to tackle your question in two different ways. first of all, when i talk about one of the lessons our military has learned here over the last eight years, that might give you insight sight into things you can help your students with and then i would like to talk about democracy and what some of the things that at least i personally have learned about democracy since serving in iraq. from a military perspective, i think that if you look at our military now compared to where we were eight years ago we have learned an incredible amount. the mill -- military services all learning organizations. not only do we work to get as much as we can out of every experience but we seed what we learn right back into our situation. we apply those lessons learned all along the way. our military now is very different than the ones that entered iraq in 2003.

one lesson that i personally have taken on over the years and have learned it repeatedly is the importance of understanding culture. if we are going to work with people from another country, we have to work hard to be students of culture. we have to be students of our not -- our own culture. we have to understand the underlying assumptions, but we have to work to be students of the culture the people in whatever country we're going to operate in. if we want to be effective dealing with them, we need to understand their frame of reference. many times over the years, i've seen where us westerners have had good intent, but because we didn't understand the cultural frame of reference especially early in 2003 or 2004 we stumbled some. since then, i think we have worked hard to understand the culture and operate effectively

as partners with the iraqis. .

guest: you had a growth of al qaeda. it hijack them as far as the overall purpose. along the way, al qaeda overplayed its hand and help to bring up resentment in the tribes in northern and western iraq. the trouble awakening the -- the trouble awakening -- the tribal awakening coincided with

the surge and with the iraqi forces surged to have a significant impact on the security situation. we didn't just add a bunch of troops and. we learned along the way we have to change our tactics as we build up the importance of counter insurgency doctrines. we focused on the people. the people were the critical part of the situation. tribal awakening, and the iraqi military surge came together to change the security situation. there has been a momentum building for increased security and continued growth in the size and the quality of the iraqi security forces every step of the way.

this does not mean that the rock -- iraq is a perfect situation. i didn't answer what was happening -- that iraq would look like. i do not know. i think the rockies are -- i think the iraqis are on the right road. providing is essential services for their people. increased privatization of business in its role of economic development and all the things they have done to improve their security forces lead me to believe they are on the right track. that does a mean we can fully see the road ahead. there will be some obstacles and they will continue to learn. there are many things that they

have opportunities now they never had in the past. we cannot solve all their problems for them. it will require hard work on their part. it is not just a matter of keeping u.s. troops to continue to solve their problems. they are capable of taking the lead. host: that is a question on twitter. to pay for what we're doing in iraq. have they picked up the tab already? guest: very much they have already. look at what they have contributed over the years to their own equipping of their military forces. it started out very much a u.s. government program providing for

the security forces with respect to equipment. over the last years, that has changed. i think last year was more than 90% that is paid for by the iraqi people rather than the american people. that is going rapidly down to or ought to 100%. as far as sellers, there are more than 650,000 troops. their salaries are paid for by the iraqi government. there is no cost shared by the u.s. taxpayer. the awakening movement, the sons of iraq, the tribal movement was an idea that develops in 2006 in the baghdad provinces and it was u.s. funding that got the program going.

we transitioned responsibility for the program to the iraqi government, so they are paying for security contractors above and beyond the 650,000 troops. they are paid for by the iraqi government. host: dominique, a republican. caller: i study organizations in the business world. one thing they say that is important is culture. in the military, this is important. culture plays a big part of that. what i see down the road is the iraqi country will continue to be democratic cultures in the military and that will be important. if there is -- if there is

disruption will the military stay out of that? guest: well, thanks. i got allot garbling in the question. i think that is a great question and an important one that has to be answered. you know that anytime you try to change the culture something large spiky society this something much smaller like an organization, culture is not easy to change. it takes a lot of work overtime to do so. when you take an example of the society and the culture of democracy and the values that are required, that will take many years to develop the values

that are required for democracy. we started -- i was part of the effort in 2003 to help stand up the iraqi army. we were bringing folks come experienced military troops across the board, but their professional culture of the profession they had come from was not what we were shooting for. we have been working since 2003 to help instill ideas that reflect hours. the idea is that the security forces are there to protect the people and serve the nation. human-rights are critical and we should do everything we can to protect human rights. those kinds of things. have there been problems?

i think there have. they continue to learn and to improve. this doesn't mean from time to time individuals react back based on previous experiences or old habit. we saw an example of this recently with some of the demonstrations we had where the government understood the people needed to be able to demonstrate. they needed to share their voice. the government understanood they needed to listen to their people. individual members of the security forces do things that are not consistent with the values that we're talking about. i think they are headed in the right direction. i think they will continue to grow. it is not gone to be exactly like ours. the role of our military for our

country is sur's our nation well. it will not be an exact replica. host: we are talking with general jeffrey buchanan from iraq this morning. you can begin dialing in now. we have a special line for iraq veterans -- 202-737-2579. we have a veteran. your next. go ahead. caller: how a are you doing? i find on various job descriptions in the melder, sometimes people cheat and they will max out the correspondence courses. i wonder what the military is doing to stop this especially

in the ranks of staff sergeants in the military where you have a lot of veterans cheating the system to get promoted. i was also the training specialist in my unit. part of my job was sending soldiers to various schools. those schools are legitimate. there are some illegitimate schools online. i wanted to know what they are doing to stop the fraud. the promotion points and the system that the use. host: we got your question. general? guest: thank you for your service. you need to know that the brigade is in the process of redeploying.

they did you proud. they did a great job. we appreciate their service. the courses he was talking about -- a number of different correspondent courses that supplement the professional development, education of our junior enlisted soldiers. and the officer corps. i think that every day we do all that weekend to uphold the army values and ideas like honor and integrity are key ideas and we tried to reinforce. if we find lapses in those we will deal with them and ensure that those who are held responsible for having breakdowns in values are brought back in line.

or if they cannot change their values, be consistent and they need not to serve. i can give you a specific example of things that we are doing outside of what the policies would be in all those individual units to ensure the standard is being upheld. honor, integrity, the personal integrity to stand up for what is right. we depend on specialists like yourself to stand up and take a stand. those are values we want to reinforce. that does not mean people are perfect. host: we have another tweet from a viewer. guest: when you talk about most military support of various

groups from iran, it is three different groups we're most concerned about. the militant groups that receive backing from the islamic revolutionary guard include hezbollah, a small organization less than several hundred people. the next larger organization is the lead of the righteous -- the league of the righteous. the last group is a brigade that used to be a special arm of the militia. all of these groups receive training with respect -- training, intelligence support in iran. that linkage is probably the greatest and the weakest with

the brigade. they have all been responding back to master's in iran, and the serve to undermine the sovereignty. their actions have been shaken by a sovereign state that has meant to keep iran week and isolated, isolated from the entire region. one of my concerns is that after the u.s. military leaves, these groups are still going to be around and they will be responsible back to their irani and masters. they claim to be attacking u.s. forces. the majority of their casualties are iraqi security forces. the government of iraq leaders understand that and they see these groups as a threat they represent. we're seeing an effort by the leadership by the security

forces to defeat these groups. there threat is not gone. i am not as worried about the potential for a coup from those groups. but i'm worried about the potential for them to undermine iraq's sovereignty. we do believe that iraq should have a relationship with iran. it should be based on mutual respect. host: a democrat in boston. you are on the air. caller: that was my question. is see a terrorist or a freedom fighter -- is he a terrorist or a freedom fighter? there are war crimes in which american soldiers were supposed to have killed children as young as five years of age in 2006.

is there any investigation into this? thank you. guest: thank you for your question. obviously our condolences and hearts go out to anybody who has lost their lives over the years. there has been a significant amount of loss of life on the iraqi's part. with respect to this incident, it was investigated fully in 2006. we have nothing new or no new investigation or anything like that. the results of the investigation were made public. host: eric is a veteran in state college, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. a previous caller was talking about the changing of culture. i wanted to get your thoughts --

the iraqi government has been making progress. once the u.s. troops pull out, what do you think the chances of regression back to kind of of where they came from so to speak? guest: thank you for the question. i cannot speculate too much about the future. i will tell you what i think based on what i have seen over the years. the people believe in democracy. sometimes they have not been happy, as one would clearly understand, about how we got to this point. nobody wants to go back to the days of sitting on hussein -- of saddam hussein. they are very different than the

natures of the demonstration we have seen throughout the region. the first point in most of the other countries whether it was egypt or tunisia or libya was that the people wanted to have a voice in their future. the demonstrations we have seen in iraq have been geared to the government possibility to provide for the people, their ability to ensure that the people have all of their needs met. people clearly want jobs and economic development and security. all of those are headed in the right direction. the people have been expressing their opinions. nobody wants to go back to the days of a dictatorship and when they did not have a right to demonstrate. our two countries signed two

agreements in 2008. the first was that bilateral security agreement that most people focused on which governs the role of the u.s. military. that is what gives us our mandate to transition to full civilian authority by the end of the year. the second agreement is far more important with what it means to the future relationship between iraq and the united states. that is the strategic framework agreement. a partnership between our two countries and says the condition on everything from agriculture, economic development, educational exchanges, as well as defense and security cooperation. that will give our governments and ambassador jeffrey the

continued guidance to operate a strong partnership with iraq. the u.s. military is redeploying before the end of the year and will transition to way u.s. civilian leadership role. it is a transition and it is not an end. we will continue to be involved in iraq's development. host: can you give us a percentage of worthy iraqi government is in providing the things that you outlined to their citizens? are they above 50%? where are that? guest: i cannot give it a gross number. a couple of different sectors and describe where they are in

providing for their citizens. let's go with security. this reflects the positive trend in that today we have an average for this year of about 14 attacks per day throughout the country. that is a country of 30 million people, and those attacks are focused on u.s. forces, iraqi security forces, and iraqi civilians. there could be a complex car bomb attacks. 14 at tax per day is not satisfactory but it is less than 10% of 145 attacks we had back in 2007. it is headed in the right direction. the people deserve a country

that is stable, that is sovereign, and is self reliant. we think that is good for the people of iraq and good for the entire region. economic development -- go ahead. host: that goes to a tweet we just received. guest: first of all i do think it is important to recognize the tremendous sacrifice. i have lost a lot of friends both iraqi and american. i do not want to couch it in terms of an investment -- if you give this much money, here's

what you get back in return. a number of things have happened over the years to change not just iraq but our relationship with iraq and our relationship with the entire region. if you go back to where we work in the aftermath of 2011 significant concerns about the potential nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, you had a number of incidents throughout the region that cost us a concern about iraq. iraq was isolated from its neighbors at the time and was essentially -- it did not have any positive relations with any of their neighbors. you can go back in iraq look at' -- you can go back and look

at iraq's war with iran and with kuwait. increased positive relations with their various neighbors. the behavior of the iraqi government has reflected that they are moving in that direction. they are a potential to host the arab league summit in the spring. they are resolving outstanding issues with kuwait. they are increasing relationships with turkey. these are movements in the right direction. we have a partner that is a democracy. democracy in iraq can provide an example of what democracy can be.

there has been learning along the way. all of these other countries around the area who many of them have undergone a recent change have an opportunity to learn from iraq. what it means some economic stability for not just the united states or the region but for the entire world economy is very important. all of these are important. there are important from a u.s. perspective in a critical region of the world. it is a growing democracy. they have gone on a lot of opportunities in their continuing to develop. they are not where they desire to become but the move towards there. host: mike is an independent in

ohio. caller: transparency and accountability general host:. we're listening -- host: we are listening. oil. breakdown oil. a twice decorated marine general wrote a book, "war is a racket." this has nothing to do with democracy. host: we got your point. guest: iraq has a lot of oil. the potential of iraq to develop

oil has been stymied by years of inept management by saddam hussein's government. the iraqi government has made some rational decisions and how to privatize the oil companies in bringing in a number of international oil experts from all over the world, not just from the united states but also from the uk, russia china. you see a number of rational decisions being made a iraq by theiby the iraqi government. this is a lament that we hear from people who suspect the u.s. motives, who somehow suspected that the u.s. military

came here to take iraq's oil and there is no basis in that. we're here to help provide opportunities to the iraqis to meet their own potential. host: we have to say goodbye to major general jeffrey buchanan. we want to thank him for spending time with us this morning and answering phone calls. coming up, we will be talking right-to-work about laws in different states across the country. in our last 45 minutes, we'll look at thelabor unions. we'll be right back. ♪

>> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, candidate bios, and the latest polling data, plus links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states all at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> this weekend, live coverage from each of the memorial sites. here's our live schedule. saturday the flight 93 national memorial ceremony from shanks sville pennsylvania.

vice-president biden from the pentagon. honoring those who lost their lives on united flight 93. 9/11 remember, this weekend on the c-span networks. >> henry clay ran for president and lost. he is one of 14 men featured in "the contenders." this week, his kentucky home. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with mark mix president of the national right to work legal defense foundation. what do you do? guest: they are related from may standpoint. a lobbying organization that

works in the capital working on labor law. we provide free legal aid to employers who have had their rights violated. we help employees exercise their rights. host: how did define -- how do you define right to work? guest: it is a basic rights. 22 states protect their rights of workers without having to pay dues or fees as a condition of keeping their jobs. host: these are the states in below. in yellow, forced unionism states. guest: we are moving forward and

passed our last in oklahoma. several states are debating legislation right now. one bill was vetoed by john lynch. we have a few more hurdles to jump and we think indiana maybe a 23rd right-to-work law. other states are beginning to talk about it as well. host: this is what the afl-cio has to say about right-to-work laws. guest: we have been blamed for a

lot of things. constant halitosis. the bottom line is this. if forcing workers is the solution, i guess i should give up my day job and go to work for them. host: are the numbers right? guest: no, they are not. there was a study. they adjusted wages for cost of living. they applied and apples to apples comparison. they found workers in right-to- work states make more than their compatriots in other states when you adjust for cost of living. a plumber in new york city makes more than one in utah.

when you adjust for cost of living they do almost $5,000 a year better in disposable income. host: why is that? guest: the scope of government is smaller. job growth is up. the cost of living -- renting an apartment is different. when you factor those in, workers in right-to-work laws are better off. host: fewer people with health care is what the afl-cio says. guest: i do not know the specific numbers. the number of people being

covered is increasing in right- to-work states. if you do not tender $38 to you union on a monthly basis, you cannot work. the idea of compulsion is wrong in america. they will divert the debate to anything else that shields them from the notion. host: have you looked at data that says the health-care benefits are the same? guest: let's talk about private sector job growth. there are reports on that information. right-to-work states have increased private-sector jobs by the 37%. that is triple. right-to-work states have

positive job growth. all this debate is irrelevant if people are not working. let's get people back to work. host: we have a tweet. guest: well, i disagree with that. frankly, a company that does that would be out of business in the short term and probably in the midterm and certainly in the long term. the idea that employees are out to destroy the company -- how do they make products? if you officials believe this policy is working for them, they should keep doing what they are doing. 6.9% of private sector workers are under control. they should change their working

model. they should continue when it was said the workers of america are here as a voluntary institutions. they should get out of the business of playing politics. host: who foots the bill for your organizations? guest: voluntary contributions. we have hundreds of thousands of people that send and sacrificial guess because they believe in freedom. host: who are some of these contributors? guest: we did not disclose those names for obvious reasons. you officials take these lists -- union officials take these lists and intimidate people. we are concerned about the

privacy of our donors. they know compulsory unionism that is wrong. host: right-to-work the issue will recome up when congress returns. boeing shifted a plant from washington state. legislation would prevent or a company can't create jobs. guest: this is an amazing decision. increasing by a thousand new jobs in south carolina. south carolina at right-to-work is a state. boeing needs to be able to get the aircraft out and they decided to create a new facility in south carolina. the machinists union filed a

complaint. the obama board has been filed against boeing. the production facility in south carolina may be shut down and the jobs may have to go back to washington state. host: there was an interview with "the new york times." "it has led to a perception of this agency doing radical things. the rhetoric is so overheated." guest: if a government agency is going to tell a private employer where they can expand, that is a new standard by a board that we have not seen before. two germchairmen have said that

this is unprecedented. it is unprecedented what they are trying to do in boeing. a notice was posted. their work starts when someone files and on fair labor practices. they are saying they have the authority to require businesses to post these notices in the workplace. host host: according to the nlrb web site -- 51 regional field offices. three members are currently serving on the board. an effort underway by

republicans to have that one republican member step down so that they are not able to do any work. guest: we have heard about that. let's get the legislature to step up and do their job. one check is congress. republicans should man up. they should do something about that in congress. sometimes they lack of backbone. they should be in that fight. host: let's get to our viewers. caller: we have a lot of fogging going on. the real issue is not being stated. the right of people, workers to contract.

this man is advocating for taking away the right of people to sit down and negotiate and have those contracts in force by the government. he wants to give power to the corporations and take away the government and the individual and labor from being able to handle these issues. guest: absolutely not. i'm sorry you have been misinformed. the statute protect workers' rights to join unions. it also should give individual workers the right -- you shouldn't not be able to dictate to me what my contract terms are. i should be able to represent myself.

under federal law, you can force york representation on me. that is wrong. i should have the right to reject it. when you have a compulsion and force them to pay as a condition of employment, that is out of balance and it is wrong. it's that simple. host: plan in jacksonville, florida -- glen. caller: my question goes out m tor. to mr. mix. if you're trying to work for your rights, yin's are there specifically if workers are being mistreated -- unions are there specifically. when something is not necessarily big enough to be a

big deal for a union most americans are not exactly working jobs that are $14 a $15 an hour. most of us find the agreement and we work and everything. nobody has the right to work. you have a right to find a job. we should have a right to keep the fruits of our labor. a lot of our country is slipping away from the constitution. when we going to see some changes? guest: those are good points. the first amendment of the constitution talks about association rights. the labor law says i can force you to associate with me. if workers believe they are

being harmed in the workplace they can join together. union officials try to dodge the issue. they can force workers to pay fees to keep their jobs. because of their compulsion, they have been allowed to focus on causes that many disagree with because they are guaranteed that payment on a monthly basis as a condition of employment. we believe that workers will join them because they will focus on the work place and they will focus on representing workers where they are working instead of politics in washington. host: chuck from indiana. caller: you mentioned the cost

of living adjustment. what is the cost of living derived from? what about gas food, heating oil, electric? these are nine essentials. -- non-essentials. wait a minute. guest: did i say non-essentials? the cost of living index is something the government puts together. there is an abstract that puts regions in and they take a basket of goods and the price them in these regions and they come up with a cost of living

index. you should compare powell's with apples. you need an index -- you should compare apples with apples. government agencies that do cost-of-living indexes workers at right-to-work in states are making more money in disposable income. host: good morning, michael. caller: smoke and mirrors. i believe in unions. i agree with him. why should you benefits? why should the union go to save those jobs? you benefit. guest: that is a classic

argument. if unions are doing their job workers would join them voluntarily. to force you to request representation is outrageous. we should not get into the decision of forcing you to join a union. to accept them as a bargaining agent is the fundamental wrong. we understand that. a dirty little secret in the workplace. they have been granted exclusive bargaining privilege. they come out and say we are forced to represent these people. therefore they have to pay dues and fees to us. they should represent those

workers that want their representation. i recommend it. host: lower workers' compensation benefits. the maximum benefits are $30 higher in what they call free states. host: guesguest: more potholes i would suspect. that is a way to get around the argument. these statistics -- i am not sure where they get them. we believe workers should have the right to join or not to join a union. if you're not working, all that stuff does not matter.

freedom is working right now. freedom is a recipe for the success of the country. we recommend you officials -- we recommend union officials get on board. caller: i have a perfect compromise. the compromise would be a change to a federal law that takes the dues and fees into the hands of the employer. if and organize union forms it would be required to bring out the fees and educe for each employee. it would no longer come out of the pocket of the employee. every employee would be free to

decide whether or not they want to join the union based on whether they want to be part of the representation process. the only thing i disagree with is the fees and the dues should not have to be paid by anybody who works there. it should be paid by the employer for every employee. guest: i appreciate the creativity. you are saying the employer would pay fees and deues. we talked about that earlier. john f. kennedy was one of the leading senators in that hearing back in washington. compulsion and corruption go

hand in hand. they said employers and unions had to be apart from each other. union officials could not give employers money. if the employers had to pay the dues and fees, i'm not sure what incentive they would have to represent employees on the shop floor. provide for the best relationship in the workplace. host: the teamsters president was on one of the sunday shows and he talked about the obligation of the american business. >> we need a bold plan. look at what happened with irene. everything has to be redone.

most of all he has to challenge business. labor needs everybody to be in the game. everybody is saying, what is obama going to do? they are sitting on trillions of dollars. we have lost $8 million since 2008. he should be putting in some kind of a tax incentive to get off the sidelines and start spending some of that money and putting america back to work. it has to be done by all of us. this is an american problem. guest: the solution is always bigger business and government spending. they are more interested in what

is happening in washington because they have the privilege of forcing workers to pay dues or fees to keep their jobs. that is wrong. it is a great business model if you can get it. caller: high have mixed emotions on the subject. -- i have mixed emotions on the subject. i was a union worker for 25 years. when i see my government telling going where they can open a factory, that is no longer a democracy. that is a dictatorship. i was raised in southern west virginia in the 1940's and 1950's. i can recall when the company owns everything. they own the store, the houses, the church.

they paid their workers in what was called script. the only place they could spend it was at the company store. back then, we needed a union. we needed someone to step in and correct the situation. the problem is the union has gotten so greedy that they have destroyed our auto industry. the post office has gone bankrupt because they're having to pay people that do not have anything to do because they have a no layoff clause in their contract. the whole thing is getting out of hand. it is greed that is destroying the union. when you decrease the -- treaty -- when you get greedy, you mess

up the whole situation. host: the chairwoman has said we would benefit from more collective bargaining because people would have more money to spend in the economy. caller: we're competing against the chinese were getting paid 31 cents an hour. it is tough to compete against other countries when the wages are that low. it is a complicated situation. i do not have any answers. i do not have the education to come up with the answers to these problems. that is what we pay the congressmen for. guest: you have more education than most people in washington. it is called the education of common sense. joining the union because of

workplace injustices' is the model we're talking about. when you use the unions to force people into associations they do not want and then force them to pay a fee that is the wrong model. back then, folks joined the union because the union was representing them. they did not care about being forced to pay dues because they had a battle on their hands. we know that institutions that are assembled through voluntary means are inherently stronger than those cobbled together through compulsion. they should understand that. host: nancy has this tweet asking about pay scales. guest: if there is a union in

place, all the workers in the right to work states are forced to accept union representation. union's lobby for and protect their monopoly jealously. they know the only way they can exert power is to have everyone forced into the collective. workers must give up the right to represent themselves. they cannot be compelled to take fees for that in justice and right to work states. host: roger is a democrat in nebraska. caller: nebraska is a right to work state. we have 4.7% unemployment. i work for a contractor. it is a small business. he has 100 employees. he was non-union. i have watched what is going on in unionwisconsin with the unions were they were breaking windows

and showing up houses. when they tried to unionize us, they tried to intimidate us. the recall, show up at our house, show up at our work and block the entrance. it was pretty bad. i am not a fan of the unions. they used their dues where we cannot compete because the union takes to dollars in our and gives it to the union contractor. he underbids us every time on jobs locally. that is not fair. that is why these projects did not work so well. they got going and went to non- union contracts. they all got rebid.

guest: he brings a big point. the idea of union power in the construction industry has been unique. they have government protection of wages. they can use these programs with a rebate the employer on an hourly rate to underbid any of our contractors bidding on a particular job. it is wrong. it boils down to forcing more workers into unions so they can get more dues money. the statistics are showing that right to work states are doing much better. we ought to address volunteerism in the workplace. host: tom is an independent in ohio. caller: i worked in a union for 12 years. i left in 1985. it was a foundry. it was a hard job. i wanted to get out of there because of my health. i made just under $11 an hour in 1985.

i have a job now worth make $11 an hour. this is greed by corporations. i just got finished working a job for shifting gears. the last five years the company had record profits and safety. they call this into a meeting every six months and told us that. every year, you do not get a raise. if you look at the charts for unions in wages, they both have a slowdownward slide together. the wages of americans in unions. the slide down together. host: when you are in that union job -- when you were in that union job, which you call yourself middle-class in 1985? caller: yes, that was 1985. host: so unions are responsible for creating a middle class.

without unions, there would be no middle class? guest: then everyone should be forced to join a private organization and that will make it better. that is ridiculous. if the solution and remedy to all problems is to force everyone into a private organization that is ridiculous. it does not work. they note it. they ought to get back into the business of representing workers who want representation. if they are truly providing benefits, people will join them. the reason they're down to 6.9% of the private sector work force is because they're not offering solutions. they're offering rhetoric and increased government spending and size. if they were held accountable by workers, i think the product would improve dramatically. host: mary sue is a republican in greenville, north carolina.

caller: i have some small comments based on living here and pennsylvania prior to moving here. they are my experiences and those of my teenage daughter who came here and try to find a job. they worked her eight or more hours a day with no brakes and often no lunch. there were no pay raises. when we called waves and our to complain -- when we called to complain, we were told those conditions were allowed to exist because it was the right to work state. she has never been able to get above the poverty level working down here. she is planning to return to pennsylvania on the weekends. she already has job interviews of their pay more for non-union jobs. -- she already has job

interviews up theire pay more for non-union jobs. we have higher pay up there because unions paid higher wages and benefits. we would benefit even though we were not union members from those opportunities. guest: if a government agent is telling you those conditions exist because of the right to work state, they are lying. i would like to know who that is because of we would like to talk to them. they're talking about a different labor doctrine that has nothing to do with whether you are forced to pay usedues for a union job. it is a function of people having the choice of whether or not to associate with a private organization and within that organization has the privilege or power to force them into job conditions and pay dues or fees.

i think if you look over the last tender 15 years the job opportunities in the right to work state of north carolina have outstripped those available in pennsylvania. i cannot speak to the specifics of your problem. if your teenage daughter is moving back to pennsylvania to find work, i wish her lawuck there. host: governors tried to push through limits on collective bargaining for public employees. those governors are facing political backlash. the approval ratings are dropping. what do you make of that given what you are arguing for? guest: the media has done a terrible job of representing what is happening in those states. gov. walker did not repeal collective bargaining. people are still bargaining over wages and other job conditions.

the police and fire had nothing change in their labor practices in wisconsin. what governor walker and the legislature did and what the fight was about was that no public employee can be forced to pay dues to a union as a condition of getting or keeping a job in wisconsin. the real fight in wisconsin was over the union's ability to extract dues from paychecks through payroll deduction. the state of wisconsin and local governments were taking those out of paychecks and forwarded them to the union. the union knows if they have to go and sell the product and collect, the worker will ask what they have done for them. they have to write a check on a monthly basis. the teachers' union in wisconsin have to lay off 40% of their employees. without the forced dues, they have to sell a product to the workers. they are not used to it because

they have that power. that is what the fight is about. it is not about workplace rights, it is about union privilege to force workers to pay dues and have the government collect it for them. that is why the fight in wisconsin was such a big deal. host: we will be talking to union labor representatives and both ohio and wisconsin. caller: obviously, if your guest is opposed to all unions. he is painting all unions with a broad paintbrush. i am a member of the national association of letter carriers. the union does not force members to join. the labor relations board mandates us to represent non- union members. does he support such a union? host: did you understand the

question? you kind of broker. could you repeat it? guest: does hecaller: our union does not force members to join. does he support that? guest: federal employees have a right to work protection. post office workers are covered by that. they do not have to pay dues to keep their jobs. only about 27% of federal employees have voluntarily chosen to join unions. forcing representation on workers is not something that the national labor relations act created. union officials lobbied for and desire the idea that they should be able to force every worker in to the collector. that is the strength in their power. it is not the workers par. it is the union officials power. if you are an employee covered by a monopoly bargaining in

agreement, you cannot talk to your employer directly. what kind of work environment is that when a supervisor or employer cannot talk directly to employees about wages and performance question they have to have a union steward present to do that. they know the only way they can collect dues is to force people into it. why not give up the burden of representing all workers and only represent those who want the representation? forced these would not be an issue. if they did a good job workers would join voluntarily. host: for more information go to the website. we have one more question from livingston, texas. steve, are are you with us? i think we lost him. there was another phone call

coming in. congress returns this week. what are the legislative issues? guest: we want to see them take up senate bills. eric cantor has indicated it will take the job protection act in relation to the boeing situation. they will deal with that. i am not sure when that will come out. it will be an issue for debate. host: coming up, two union representatives as we talk about the role of labor unions today. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you contract the latest campaign contributions with the c-span website. it is easy to use. it helps you to navigate the

political landscape with canada biographies and the latest polling data with links to c- span media partners in the early states. >> 10 year anniversary of 9/11th with live coverage from each memorial site. here i our live schedule. on saturday the flight 93 national memorial dedication ceremony from pennsylvania. on sunday morning, and memorial ceremony from the world trade center site with president obama and former president bush. on c-span2 vice president biden from the pentagon. at 9:30, honoring those who lost their lives of flight 93. that is this weekend on the c- span networks.

in 1844, henry clay ran for president of the united states and lost --. he chased political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in the new weekly series "the contenders." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back for the next 45 minutes on this labor day. we want to talk about the influence of unions today to get your perspective on that. we're joined on the phone by tim burga. i want to start with the strength of unions in ohio. guest: there are near 1 million union workers in the private and public sector in ohio. all workers in ohio find themselves under attack. now.

host: i want to show you and the viewers the latest polling showing how americans view unions. 52% of americans approve. that is one of the lowest that gallup has seen. what is your reaction? guest: i can assure you that is not the case in ohio. we have found that when union workers in the public sector were attacked from all highlands, we are finding unions and collective bargaining are used quite -- seen quite favorably by the general public. we have had opportunity to have a real conversation about the value of unions and collective bargaining. our public sector workers delivering essential public services make our communities

work. host: our last best represents a group for right to work states. he made the argument that what you saw in ohio and wisconsin was not an effort by the governors to stop collective bargaining. instead, it was to curb union privileges. what is your reaction to that? guest: in ohio, said that built bsenate bill 56 to do both. -- senate bill 5 6 to do both. we need to get our private sector workers back on the job and back in the middle class. senate bill 5 -- people believe it is not fair and hurts us all. when you do that, you break a promise to those who serve our communities. the people of ohio are upset about that.

there is an unbelievable groundswell of opposition to the bill. that was indicated by the 1.3 million signatures we got to put the issue on the ballot. i am convinced without energy level going forward, we will be able to vote no and repeal the bad bill. host: the ballot measure will be available in november to repeal senate bill 5. who are you working with and how much money are you spending on the effort? guest: we're working with ohio ans in every corner. public and private sector union and non-union have come up to say this is an overreach. jobs are the number-one issue in ohio. ohio is number one in the country in ways sauce over the last decade. the governor say tdecided to pursue

this. it is a politically motivated agenda. it will hurt families across the state. ohio has seen through this as a politically motivated attack. we believe it is not fair. it allows politicians and upper management to have a special exemption. it does not allow for nurses, police officers, and firefighters to negotiate staffing levels, receive critical trading, or equipment to keep us safe. ohioans know that going forward it will hurt all workers. when you take away basic rights in the workplace, you will drive down benefits and wages and will see layoffs. you cannot improve the economy by lowering the bar for all workers. host: gov. kasich was our guest yesterday. here is what he had to say. >> i reject the notion that we are disrupting people's bargaining rights. you will be able to continue to

negotiate for your wages and working conditions. nobody in the private sector that i am aware of negotiates for their pension or health care. we're asking public employees to share some of the sacrifices that the private workers have shared. let me tell you what we're asking public employees to do. we're asking them to be 15% of their health care. i know a lot of people in the private sector who would like to sign up for that. we're not asking public employees to pay the 25% of a lot of private sector workers pay. we're asking them to pay 105%. guest: is not accurate. it has stripped the most basic of rights. it makes it illegal to strike. it takes away binding

arbitration in disputes resolution. this labor day is the time to reflect on the value of workers. working people will always be the backbone of our economy. public policy needs to validate this. senate bill five is the guy opposite -- is the exact opposite of public policies that stand up for the workers. when weare we going to see a shared sacrifice when the wealthy carry their share of the burden? the middle class is topped out. we need to get private sector workers back on the job and in the middle class. for the last 10 years ohio has been number one in the country for wage laws. this will drive us further to the race -- in the race to the bottom. i believe it is the design of those on the far right. ohio will not stand for it.

i am confident they will reject it and vote no on it. host: i want to get your reaction on what the governor said to this. >> the opposition to the bill has a website with nothing on it about the bill. once we start talking about the bill, the public buys into it. we tried to sit down with the unions but they would have no part of it. this is important to the local communities, the city councils the school districts. they have high personnel costs. host: what is your reaction to what you hear from the government? guest: more inaccuracies. organized labor and working people tried to testify. they often found they were not welcome. we were trying to be a part of the process. it was on the fast track. they were not about to listen to

reason. it is not about that. it is about a politically motivated bill to try to get complete control of the public policy agenda for corporate ceo's and wall street to create a permanent low-wage work force. ohioans know that some of the five is unfair and hurts us all going forward. -- senate bill five is unfair and hurts all of us going forward. ohio is tired of the politics. they want us to work together. we need to raise the bar for workers. this drive to the race to the bottom part of workers. the governor to the wrong path. ohio will reject it. host: thank you for your time this morning.

guest: happy labor day. host: we're turning to you to get your take on the influence of unions. let's hear from landdon, a republican from virginia. caller: whether union or not to criticize the unions would be like criticizing the pope. unions have become self-serving. the unions and individuals in the become self-serving. they try to keep everybody out of positions. the union president will usually say he is the strongest person to help with jobs. that is not true. you have labor laws in all

states. unions may have become somewhat out of date. let's look at the political issue of the whole thing. union members are generally democrats. non-union members are generally republicans. this basic argument is about whether york democrat or republican. unions put a lot of money into the political process. they can be extremely influential. i think everybody has been disingenuous about the things they're saying about unions. unions have done a great job. maybe they are becoming a little out of date. host: according to the september 2011 gallup poll, approval ratings by party so that only

26% of republicans approve of unions. bobby is a democrat in alabama. caller: i would like to go back on the history. if you look back, unions are the reasons for the middle class in america. the unions were the one who got the minimum wage raised, the 40- hour workweek. all of this was done by the unions. people who were not union benefited from it. host: do you think that is the situation today? caller: you are doing away with your unions down. the union percentages smaller than it used to be. you are doing away with the middle class. alabama is a right to work

state. percentage wise, we have more people on food stamps than any of the state -- other states. unions helped the average people and built the middle class. thank you, dear. host: i want to ask you about the perception that americans have of unions. 52% of americans approve. gallup has asked americans whether they approve or disapprove of unions. more americans have always approved than disapproved. the lowest approval rating was 48% in 2009. a record high 75% approved in the 1950's. what do you make of that and how it has changed over the years? caller: i think mostly your

democrats, the working class people that percentage is always higher. republicans are mostly big business and this type of deal. i am retired. i am 77 years old. and retired from a union job. your last guest averted the question about being in a union plant with a person not being a member of the union. the union has to represent them the same as it does the ones who pay the dues and our union members. i believe the majority of the working class people are democrats.

you do have a lot of republicans who are union members also. host: michael is a union member in charleston south carolina. caller: this last guy on their forgot that right to work laws are the right to work for less. it is also hire and fire at will. that means you can be fired for any reason whatsoever. someone can have a bad day and fire everyone in the shop no one can do anything about it. they can activate the statute in the south carolina laws. it is a misrepresentation. the reasoning in influence has gone down is because these corporations have taken the big jobs in america overseas to china and other countries and laid the blame on the unions

because of wages. it is not because of wages. it is because of the benefit to them. it is because of profit, agreed, and avarice. people need to stand up for themselves. host: sam tweeted this i should not be punished for hard work. caller: i worked a lot more than 40 hours. i worked 60 or 80 hours a week. i just got paid overtime for it. after 40, that is federal law. if you want to work more hours you can work that if they have the powers available. i have no problem with that. host: even in a union situation? caller: sure. host: zach from tennessee, you

are on the air. turn that television down. caller: can you hear me? i used to work in a company that had for five factors. two were union and two were not. the non-union were producing a lot and making more money. the union once produced less and made less profit. there should be competition. many companies will compete for the good worker. if he is a better worker, nobody wants him. the union. text about worker, the lazy worker -- the union.

text the bad worker, the lazy worker. -- that unions projectect the bad workers, the lazy workers. with competition, the workers will succeed in become business owners. the best workers will find more jobs because they want good workers. host: gene is in atlanta. caller: i would like to address the notion of democrats being the workers. i have been of the republican mentality for least 30 years. i have bought into the line of democrats being the workers but i have realized that you have to take responsibility for yourself. do not rely on a union. use your of abilities to negotiate your own -- your own

abilities to negotiate on wages. take responsibility. work hard and realize that you can make it without help from the organization if you take responsibility for yourself. republicans are not all wealthy. republicans are just like everybody else, just trying to make a living. we want to rely on ourselves. i hope i have made myself clear. host: this is the afl-cio president last week answering questions about the most significant change for the american worker. >> the most disheartening thing during that year was people coming forward in leadership positions and saying that the workers in wisconsin have a pension and health care.

you do not have it so let's take away from them. that was never the american way. america always looked at those who did not have and said, how do we help them? how do we get that for them? they did not look at those who do have an taken away. that is un-american and unpatriotic. the people who say that and that we cannot create jobs have given up on america. we have not given up on america. the workers of america have not given up on america. the vast majority of people out there have not given up on america. we resent those who say the best years for america are behind us and we cannot give our citizens a good job, that we cannot give our citizens health care that we cannot give them a secure retirement, that we have to scale back the american dream in the richest nation on the face of the earth.

we refuse to except that. host: that was the afl and cio president -- it was the afl-cio president on the biggest change in the last 12 months. our next caller is a union member from georgia. caller: i am retired from the carpenters union in atlanta, georgia. the department of labour and put me through an apprenticeship program where i got to make a good wage and take care of my family and sent to the kids to college. i get a pension now from the printers union. the union will not let illegal workers joined. you have to be an american citizen. i think that is why there are less people in favor of unions.

host: let's hear from timothy on the democratic line in maryland. caller: this is a form of class warfare foster are republicans. people with good sense join the unions and united to fight employers taking advantage of them. they fought for good wages and better working conditions. these people who did not do that and mostly live in the south and midwest did not have enough sense or foresight to see that joining together as a group would help to increase their power to negotiate. they did not use their good sense to do that. they want to bring the people who did well and built the middle class down to where they are. host: let me get reaction to this e-mail. she writes that there should be no public sector unions because

taxpayers have no say in the way the money is spent. caller: she is not paying for the benefits. these people are working people. they pay their own union dues. i do not know what she is paying for. these people contribute to their own funds and programs. where she is paying for it, i do not know. host: seldon is from north dakota, an independent color. caller: i am retired. i was a union member for 35 years. i do not think the problem is the unions. i think it is nafta and gatt. the only way you get this country back where it belongs is canceling both of those in making fairer trade agreements.

korea puts 35% import taxes on everything coming in there. ours is 3% for them. i lived in germany thailand, france vietnam in the army. i could sell a pair of blue jeans in 1961 for $10 in france and they were getting a deal because all these other countries have had that forever. if we have fair trade, if they have an excise tax on all imports, if we do the same thing, to them, we could bring jobs back to this country. host: bob is a republican incumbent, rylandhode island.

caller: where were the unions when the free trade agreements came up? the federal government is still pushing the free trade agreements. it spends taxpayer money to send these jobs out of the country. then they turn around and cut aid to the cities and towns. they're not getting the billions of dollars in tariffs anymore. these other foreign countries get a big tax break for hosting american jobs. i wish ifthe unions would stand up to the federal government. they have the perfect opportunity to boost their membership but actually standing up to the federal government. every union member and i know of said it was no good and would be no good for the country. why could they not stand up to the federal government. they did not. i have lost several jobs that went overseas.

it does not pay any more. they want to know why there are no jobs. look at the federal government and their policies in the world economy. it is a bunch of malarkey designed to take american jobs. the government politicians get donations from the company's to their reelection campaigns. i think it is criminal. i want the unions to stand up to this. i would love to see it. host: the teamsters president was on "state of the union" yesterday talking about companies going overseas. >> i think businesses are sitting on money. apple has $76 billion in their checking account. they are not doing anything with it. everything they do is in china or ageism warm -- asia somewhere. honda is building a billion dollar plant that they want to build in mexico.

do they not have an obligation to america to build it in america and put people to work here instead of mexico? i think the president should challenge the patriotism of these american corporations. they have an obligation just like the federal government. we've all got to get into the game. i do not see that happening. the billions and trillions of dollars on the sidelines and overseas, let's start repatriating that money. let's start a program to get america growing again. host: the influence of labor unions today is our subject. the next caller is from idle wild. caller: i worked for about 25 years in the auto industry. a lot of times i fellt people

were causing problems for themselves. if not for the union, i would not have been in that job for the amount of time. the factor has closed down and gone overseas. they got the unions out of the factories. they brought the factory backed two years after it closed. that was the legal amount of time they had to get us out of there. they lowered the pay. they brought some members back at lower pay. at of 250 people, they brought back about 50 members. i think it has to do with political agendas of some in both parties. it is what is bringing us down as far as being able to work. i am going to school and changing my curriculum for what i will be doing. i am also 53 years old. where do i turn to? if the unions were there i would still be there and be

productive. instead i am now in school. the money is being used for school, but i am not making money. host: the next caller is independent from florida. caller: the previous caller said to go back to history. i am 80 years old. i remember back in the 1940's and 1950's that wages were really low. the unions were not strong. at that time, one person could make enough to make a living. you did not need two people in a household making a living. the only other comment i want to make is that people complain about jobs leaving the country. they can thank the unions and their greedy ways. if we get back to me right to work state, i think that would straighten out a lot of things. -- if we get back to the right to work states, i think that

would strain out a lot of things. host: the next call is from a republican. caller: i believe we should let the market decide whether businesses should have unions. we have a progressive tax on corporations. if you surtax unions and offer deductions for that surtax for safety reasons then you can let the market decide. it is a good compromise when we do that, particularly if we tariff china and other nations. host: mary is a democrat in flushing, mich.. we're talking about the influence of labor unions today. caller: the labor unions of today have less influence because the corporations have

created their own organization. i want you to write this down. i am hoping c-span will look into it. it is called the american legislative exchange council. it is made up of global corporations and state politicians. it concentrates on state laws. that is why use of the governors with prepared legislation. this group is international. they create a lossthe laws. man on earlier talking about the right to work is one of them. all of these think tanks when they're talking about the free market, they're talking about catering to those with great wealth the corporations. that is why we have seen the rise of wealth to the very top.

25 corporate heads made more money than the whole corporation paid in taxes to the government. for years as these groups have become more powerful and pushed the free-market concept, it is not free market. it is power to the wealthiest at the expense of the working person. host: we will leave it there. betsy kippers joins us by telephone. you heard the caller talking about the efforts in states like wisconsin by the governor to curb collective bargaining rights. what would you say the strength is of unions in the state of wisconsin after that? guest: i would say our biggest strength is our voice and activism. gov. walter davis a wake-up

call. we got kind of lazy in our work. our union workers united to have a common voice about what is good for the communities in wisconsin. host: mark mix was our group earlier -- guest earlier. he made the argument that in wisconsin use of the governor -- you saw the governor tried to get rid of union privileges and that the fight was really over unions getting dues collected from paychecks before it was given to the teachers. now groups like yours will have to go out and sell the product to union members and collective dues. if you do that then people will give you your dues. but that has not been the case. we have seen the headlines.

your organization has had to let people go because of the loss of dues. guest: he is right. we do have to recruit membership. our summer campaign is going well. we are recruiting in large numbers. people want to have their voices heard. they know the role of the union is to work together with a common voice on behalf of our students and communities. we have been very successful with that during the summer. i guess i would dispute that. i believe what governor weicker did went way beyond just taking away a dues deductions. he took away every aspect of collective bargaining important for our students and employees. we believe education is what improves our communities. it is what makes communities

great. we believe we can work with parents and communities to improve education. that is why people will join the union. it will help us to make education better in our schools for our students. we are committed to high quality education. they will join the organization to help us save the public schools in wisconsin. host: what has been the impact of governor walker's legislation as the school year gets under way? guest: he is cutting $1 billion from the public education system. that will be felt in the classroom with reductions in programs staff and resources. host: what is the plan of your group and others this year to fight against gov. walker?

guest: we will work closely with our communities and school districts where they will allow us to. we will be holding community forums throughout the state to hear the voices of the people who use the public education system to find out what is important to them. host: this says that big labor losses in wisconsin are because they whad a devastating loss for big labor. the political action committees associated with national and state labor organizations shelled out more than $16 million for nine recall elections. was that money well spent? guest: i believe so. we sought union members around the state more activated behind the elections than they have ever been. they now realize that with the

elections, we have power. we have to get out and vote. we did when two of the seats abouback through the recall elections. that was huge. the polls show we could lost seats. i believe our voice is strong and we will continue to work together. host: how do you respond to critics who say that unions have become political and are not fighting for the worker like they used to? instead they collect dues for political purposes. guest: the workers they collect from our public sector workers. this is that the working conditions are elected officials. those who set the working conditions are elected officials. we have to be political because those who set the policies under which we work our elected officials. how can we not be political?

host: betsy kippers has been joining us from wisconsin. thank you. next, we will talk to neil and independent in cincinnati. caller: i have been on both sides. i have been in management and a labor union member. what a lot of people do not understand about labor unions is that not only do they help people on the manufacturing floor, those in mannesmann also benefit from what the unions negotiate -- those in management also benefit from what the unions negotiate. everybody benefits from the unions. the influence of the unions today is that they have lost their way in negotiating for

their members. they have become big organizations like the corporations themselves. they have to get back to grassroots of really representing the people on the floor. they have to sell to the people in management that they also benefit from what they negotiate for. host: jeff is from maryland. go ahead. caller: i have listened to the contrarian view. think about teachers. take what teachers do and what the unions do for teachers. it is not about teaching and education. it is about the teacher holding onto his job. there were movies out in washington d.c., regarding this and the big power of unions

on education. they're not concerned about education. they are concerned about their own membership. everybody needs to understand that. it is a classic example of what unions are about. they are about their own members and keeping their own members' rights. they're not necessarily about educating our students manufacturing, and keeping companies competitive. when it comes to manufacturing that job is in jeopardy. you will not hold on to that job for ever. you are living on borrowed time. it is not about manufacturing. here is the problem with public sector unions. because of the extraordinary amount of money and concentration of money, you are

able to influence elections. that keeps you employed in insures that your benefits and salary. -- answers that you have benefits and salary. political power keeps you in power. it is not beneficial for the average citizen. it is beneficial for the unions. host: the next call is from a republican in illinois. caller: the unions of the past for a good thing. in my father's generation they help the workers safety and got the more wages. the unions today have gotten so corrupt it is almost unbelievable. i do not know how they exist they are so corrupt. we are one of the most corrupt union states. when will it end? host: last thoughts on the

influence of labor unions today. we will be back tomorrow with more of your calls e-mails, and tweets. we will have a roundtable discussion about what is next for congress. they return this week. we will look at their legislative to do list tomorrow. we will get a 101 on this labor day week as the 2012 campaign season officially kicks off. understanding polling is our topic. then we will talk to katherine bradshaw about preventing bullying in schools. thank you for watching. we will be back tomorrow. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]