president obama's jobs proposal with a guest from the economic policy institute. and later, a discussion on the housing and urban development program and who qualifies for assistance with denise muha. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ >> good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on monday, september 12, 2011. president obama plans to sell his jobs bill to congress this evening. he will have an address in the rose garden this morning, on which he will call on congress to pass the bill. there will be speeches and the senate convenes at 2:00 p.m.

there will be a bipartisan remembrance ceremony on the capitol's east front steps in honor of 9/11. the washington post has a story today called tax policies seizing the gap between the rich and poor. we would like to hear what you think about this. here are the numbers to call. if he would like to find us on journal@cit is span.org. and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. here is what this says.

the story goes on to look at some of the numbers and the breakdown of who paid capital gains, and the most that benefit to gain from the capital gains tax, and those that will gain from stocks, bonds, and it --

let us get right to the phones. larry is a democrat in mississippi. >> -- caller: that is a big problem. it shows how the country is going down the hill. the plans are being destroyed by the policy. there is no way our country can do better. it is sad that the responses -- they are saying the president is playing class warfare. class warfare is being played on the middle class. most of america does not understand. it is so sad.

i cannot believe it. thank you. host: the story says most americans depend on a salary for their income. this act to attack washington

post" story discussing the gap between the rich and the poor. does it benefit the economy or do you think it hurts those that need more help from the federal government? the non-profit public religion as a suit shows americans by a 2 to 1 margin the wealthy should pay more taxes than the middle class. warren buffett has become one of the loudest proponents that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. what do you think? nancy is a republican collar. go ahead. caller: -- caller. go ahead. caller: people that pay -- that

it paid a lot should pay accordingly. to pay the same percentage -- most of the people, i do not know what they are thinking, but there are a lot of people struggling, because they are not so wealthy. there are a lot of people like me, my husband is on disability. i am a nurse and i work a lot to make sure we can maintain what we have. i hear there are so many -- i am a nurse. where are they taking the money from? medicare payments to the hospitals of doctors? do you know what they are doing now? it hospital does not get a good report from patients, they are going to pay you less. my brother-in-law is a doctor, my daughter is in medical

school. they have paid the medical people and the hospitals over the last several years, they have decreased it by 30%. cut say there'll be a 30% this year. what is that going to do? you talk about the old drug- rich. even then, it hurts the little guy. -- ultra-rich. even then, it hurts the little guy. i believe the rich should pay their fair share. it may help the united states. it may help the government. think about if everybody was very wealthy. it brought to the government an extra $100,000 -- everybody that had a lot. think about how it may help. host: you may remember the recent op-ed from warren

buffett. he rides a this. -- he writes this. and he talks about how his tax bill measures up compared to other americans, including people who work for him. he says that back in the 1980's and 1990's, taxes for the rich were much higher.

that is the way when buffett sees things in an op-ed piece in the "new york times" last month. caller: i am a retiree who is paying my pension. i gained my income for working on my life -- working all my life. imf paying most of my accounts, fruit -- i am paying most of my accounts through capital gains and dividends. i am paying at the the full margin rate. those with taxable accounts, those that receive their income through inheritance or those that are rich through a taxable

investment are paying at a marginal rate of only 50%. -- 15%. i do not think this is there. susie gorman, when she talks to people, she recommends that they only put money into iras and 41 ks up to the match amount and up to the-- a401k' match amount. host: let's go to san francisco where mike is a democratic collar. -- caller. caller: good morning. move on to melissa

in buffalo, new york. caller: i wanted to say to the previous caller, do not take any advice to susie orman, because she gave advice to the octomom, and she is filing for bankruptcy. host: let's focus on the headline. do you think the tax policy is increasing the differences? caller: the tax system is broken as it is. it needs to be altered, because it is creating class warfare. what i agree with this the plan of herman cain that we need to have a 9% corporate tax, income tax and sales tax. i think something like that would even out of the playing field and allow everyone to pay

their fair share. the rich already do pay a higher amount in taxes than in -- and everyone else without cut. they are getting more benefits in the end. they are able to put all of their funds into offshore account and hide away their money. host: let's go to griffin, independent in michigan. caller: i keep hearing about the secretary of warren buffett. i do taxes. i figure if the secretary has a standard deduction, she would have to have an income of 90,000 a year. that would equal his 17.4%. using the word secretary, which is 50,000 on average at best in michigan and using that as an example is very disingenuous.

i would like to hear it stop. host: we have a comment on twitter. echoing a the sentiments of a caller a moment ago. caller: i think it is unfair as far as the taxes that the rich pay, which is really nothing. i do not know if anyone has ever watched, because my grandkids watched the sweet 16 parties. it is nothing for them to spend $100,000 for their kids parties and then on top of that really expensive cars. the rich do not fight wars. their children do not go to fight wars. they should pay extra, because we are making them safe and

allowing them to have their free will and the expense of the lives. and they can appear -- paid $20,000 for a pair of shoes. it is unfair. that could be a salary for the middle class. we could live really good for $100,000 a year. it is so unfair. i do not know where they're conscious is. i do not see how they can sleep at night knowing that there are so many kids going hungry, people do not have places to live, people do not have medical insurance. they are spending so much on jury and keeping up their lifestyle. it is a shame -- on jewelry and keeping up their livestock. is a shame. host: is the tax policy fair the way it is? people are looking at ways to

trim the deficit and cut spending. a lot is on the table. there is a series called break away wealth. it is called a tax policy be to the gap between the rich and poor. here is a piece of it. let's go to tennessee, jim on our independent line. caller: i have two points i'd like to make. the article neglects to mention the fact that the people that invest in capital gains have already earned the income and paid the tax.

they will be paying tax twice when they pay on capital gains. and the second and more important thing is, the article says nothing about making an impact that taxation has on those that benefit and those that pay. it requires the use of force all taxation is backed by enforcement laws. it is no different than extortion except the tax collector is granted immunity by the government. therefore it has a negative impact, because you are introducing forced into society. that has to have consequences. that is my point. host: scott, fla., independent. caller: i think it is the fact that some people are living beyond their means, and the they

are [unintelligible] that is the bigger issue than taxing people to points where they cannot become wildly and achieve the american dream. host: how does the tax policy affect that? caller: it is punitive to anyone who puts forth more effort, more logic, more time, and it punishes people for earning more. host: let's look at the distortion the "washington post."

jones, a democrat in akron ohio. welcome. caller: it is all screwed for the rich man and for the poor person to get poorer. if people do not pay attention, they robbed us with the savings and loan. they came back and rob you again in the banking industry. they are not helping nobody but the people that have capital. if you do not have capital, these capital system is working against you. host: as the "washington post" reports, it is not just the

republicans that have a say in the capital gains tax issue. take a look at this. congress ultimately voted to send it through 2012. virginia, michael, independent line. caller: i think the problem with

the tax code is no one understands it. i just got my accounting degree. i have been having trouble finding work. i was hired by a small businessman who owns his own cpa firm it was let go, because he could not afford to keep me, because he did not have the work. i was just hired recently two months later by a large company out of d.c. the whole thing about the tax code is it is not fair or unfair to one group or the other. it is unfair to anyone it is those that have money, because they work for it. everyone thinks that as political pandering, they should take the money and give it to those that do not have a dime. i worked 50 hour weeks, going to school full-time. i worked so my wife could stay home, and i worked three other jobs to get my degree. i plan on making money.

it is not fair that those willing to work hard and save and do what they have to do get taxed when they finally did make it, just so others do not have to work as hard. the tax code is the main problem. it can be applied unfairly to punish people that want to work hard. host: let's go on to our next democrats: (202) 624-1111 republicans: (202) 624-1115 independents: (202) 624-0760 outside u.s.: (202) 737-2579 caller. caller: the man before me that said warren buffett did not pay less was wrong, because warren buffett was talking about specifically capital gains, not corporate taxes. i also did it taxes.

i saw what the capital gains tax rate was for everyone. it is no different for a poor person than it is a rich person. a poor person can sell their house and get capital gains. they pay the same low rate that warren buffett pace on all of his investments. corporate taxes are a different breed altogether. also, the fact is that as a percentage, if we take herman unfair999 plan, that is to the poor, because the poor spend their money dialy. they buy things -- daily. they buy things with a sales tax. the rich do not buy things with a sales tax.

. they do massive investment in stuff, and they do not buy as a percentage of their in come quite as many products as we do. we as poor people, the working poor. my husband makes less and $50,000 a year. we are not eligible for anything other than a regular tax rate. we pay a high tax rate. that is compared to the capital gains rate. host: how would you like to see the tax code changed? caller: i see it progressive like it used to be. it used to be progressive under ice and how -- eisenhower when i was born. it was progressive under bill clinton. it was progressive until reagan got a hold of it. it worked for this country. i am waiting for reagan's

trickle-down economics to give me a job. i have been ousted from social security already, because they changed their policy in the last five years while i was trying to fight for social security, disability. frankly, at the 2000 election, i was in the hospital having brain surgery. i cannot get social security. they decided that a brain surgery did not make me disabled. while i was fighting it, they changed the policy. i am no longer eligible for social security disability. when i did become 65, i can get 200 and some a month.

as far as people pay no taxes, just because they pay no income tax, federal income tax, does not mean they do not pay the rest of payroll taxes. they pay their state taxes. they pay their local income taxes. and they pay a higher rate on their medicare and medicaid. host: let's move onto that facebook comments. here is what preston rights. -- writes. another comment on facebook, michael rightwrites.

nor falk, for janet commentary joins us on the republican line. va, terry joins us on the republican line. caller: the people being abused are those that are hard working every day. host: what do you think the tax code should do about it? caller: affect the poor as well as a does the bridge.

we cannot survive out here when we are paying dollars for everything we do. it is like an unfair deal. host: the "washington post" has this graphic. you can see this graphic here, the bottom 80% earning up to $45,000. you see the rest of the break down here. 50%, those that benefit are the top 1% making $1.5 million and up. ohio, a democrat line. caller: i do not know a whole lot about taxes. i do not think a majority of the people calling in it does either. i do pay my taxes and have been

paying all my life. i have been working all my life. i am on a fixed income now. my problem is that people call in and they are talking about -- i just want them to know that, of people out there, you are not going to be rich. stop defending the rich. they have lobbyists. they have congress. they do not need you to defend them. i am so tired of hearing these people calling in and talking about investments and how volatile everything is. we have had people waiting to invest in jobs for the last 10 years now, and they are still sitting on money. please, people, if you are poor or middle class, you are not going to be rich. stop defending the rich. they have the lobbyists to do it. for: let's look at an entry

capital gains taxes and how it works for the united states. here is what it says. this is intended to provide incentives to investors to make capital investments, to fund activity and compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax. the amount an investor is tax depends on her tax bracket and the amount of time the investment was held before being sold. larry. caller: i definitely agree. i think the tax code increases the gap between the rich and the poor, but it is not enough. we need to take the tax code more aggressive. there is a guy on here a couple

of weeks ago talking about the refrigerators, the washers and dryers. some have a roof over their head. [unintelligible] that will take care of this whole cute little ponzi scheme. host: 4 florida, bob, republican. i think this -- caller: i think this talk about tax policy is focusing on the hole instead of the doughnut. the real problem between the rich and the poor is education. i'm not an expert on education, but i know anecdotally that the culture of learning in our schools today has never been worse. something really has to be done about it.

you know, personal responsibility and a culture of education would do a lot more of closing the gap than talking about taxes and rich people. thank you very much for giving me the time. host: let's look at a story from the wall street journal today -- from "the wall street journal" today. "middle-class schools miss the mark." "report called "incomplete: how middle-class schools are not making the grade-scope -- it pointed to their national and international test scores and noted that 28% of their graduates earn a college degree by age 26, compared to 17% for lower-income students and 47% for upper-income students. third way, a democratic think

tank that claims to advocate for public sector economic growth, based its report on data from the census bureau, the u.s. department of education, and national international testing programs." there is commentary on the opinion pages on the debate last week, the republican debate that took place, and how social security was talked about. "usa today" has an opinion piece by governor rick perry of texas, seeking the presidential nomination. he writes, "the first step to fixing the problem is honestly admitting that there is a problem. america possible must be to fix social security by making it more financially sound and sustainable for the long term. as i said at the reagan library recently, social security benefits for current recipients and those nearing retirement must be protected. for younger workers, it must be made financially viable." this centers around comments

that the governor made about social security being a ponzi scheme. "perry's harsh statements miss the reality pickup is the major regions -- miss the reality." "usa to the" goes on to say "whatever changes he does make, the day moderate or dramatic, it is not the cure for what ails washington." "the wall street journal" weighs in on the opinion pages as well, saying that neither governor perry nor former governor romney is helping the cause of reform for social security. san antonio, texas. john, republican caller.

what do you think about our topic this morning, the "washington post" story that the gap is dividing the rich and the port? caller: it is not the tax policy of the rich, but everybody wants to blame the rich. the reason that we have rich and poor is the government takes everything from us. when the government employee gets paid, he is paid as a result of taxation of the private sector, not of government. the aba does not pay taxes. when he gets his money, -- the government does not pay taxes. when he pays his money, we pay his health care, his retirement. we pay his taxes also. ok? so when the president says we have to have a shared sacrifice, i keep asking myself, what is the government sharing?

they have a loss of jobs, they keep getting pay raises. it is not the rich. trust me, it is not the rich. the government programs that tell people we are going to take care of you, yet they take care of themselves very well. it is not the rich's fall. the problem is the government and the wages they get. the need to bring wages down to our level in the private sector. everything would be solved. the greater portion would be solved. host: an e-mail from new jersey -- "if lower capital gains spur investment in the stock market, then why aren't workers 401k returns taxed at the capital gains rate? when i retire i will be taxed on my social security and i will have the marginal rate -- i will pay the marginal rate on my 401k." "i think this is an interesting

topic, and i find that a lot of my liberal fans have a knee-jerk reaction to any alterations because they view them as regressive, yet i have found the current income-tax system tends to block people from crossing the to and $50,000 a year boundary. this level of the trail is horrifying to me." taking a look at a couple of other stories in the news, "republicans debate tonight." here is what is going on tonight at 8:00 eastern time in florida. the sponsors are cnn and the tea party express. participants include -- or areher our, -- or rather -- michelle bachmann, herman cain, newt gingrich, jon huntsman, ron paul, rick perry, mitt romney.

"a smooth and confident performance lit up the stage of the republican debate in june. now with polls showing her popularity dwindling, michele bachmann's is hoping to recapture its early momentum by showing her strength. in a national debate monday night." sutherland, oregon, cory, independent line. good morning. go right ahead. caller: ok. i agree with the previous caller. i totally believe that it is really not fair, the taxes that the poor and the rich have to pay. but no government officials have to. i believe that if everyone -- and i mean everyone in the entire indicted states -- put a little bit of effort into -- and i mean everyone in the entire united states -- put a little bit of effort into this, the

rich should have a higher tax rate. they earn more, and if they put a little bit more money towards it, we would be in a little bit better standing. we are living in an age where the unemployment rate is phenomenal, and people are struggling everywhere. when they do get a job, they have all these bills to pay, but taxes cut their check into a third almost. it makes it hard for people to work, and it is a struggle all the way around. i believe if the government did their part, and we cut the capital gains, we would be way better off. host: let's go to our next caller. 80, republican, from massachusetts. caller: good morning. my biggest disappointment is president obama, that he had a couple of years to work on the bush tax policies.

we should be lowering our corporate tax. yes, we can raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20%. there are many things we can do. we can even have a sales tax. but he has not done anything for it. all he was interested in is in making a name for himself with obamacare. don frank hinders business, so change -- died-franc -dodd-fank hinders business, so change your policy. the same with dividends, minus a couple hundred dollars. this would encourage people to save some more. thank you. host: richmond, virginia. beth, on our independent line.

caller: how are you? -- i aming in the calling in a about the caller may be five or six callers ago, talking about working hard. you're making money and you hire more people. you make so much money then, and then you become ultra rich, and then you forget about the people who got you where you were. i'm just getting to the point where people get so rich that they forget who helped them get there, which is you and i and every other american who works in america. host: how do you think the tax code affects this? that is what we are focusing on this morning. caller: i mean, they do give people incentive, and that is fine.

you should have incentive to work, but you should not forget where you come from and who helped you get to where you are now. the thing that people do not respect or hear what other people do for them, and how you work for them. that is all i have to say. we should love and care for one another, and it is just not happening right now. host: going to a caller named love, democrats line. good morning. caller: i think we are asking the wrong questions. when you consider the lifetime of tax payments by every worker in this country, i really believe we should be getting paid for transportation -- paid- for transportation. not free, but paid-for. pay-for transportation, pay-for kant for it -- paid-for

colleges. our money is going to billon dollar corporations and billion dollar project. for example, the bridge to nowhere? it is amazing to me that we as americans allow this to happen. that is a sad, sad thing. host: let's look at this tweet that came to us. "if we abolished the income tax and instituted a consumption tax, things would be taxed at a much fairer rate." next call, good morning. caller: i believe that those who are wealthy, they are doing more than their fair share in paying taxes because the top 5% of the wealthy are paying 58% of all the taxes. the top 10% of the rich are paying over 80%.

the lower income, the poor people of the nation, which i fall in that class -- i mean, i am a much poorer person. but the poorer people should stop their prejudice against the rich, stop complaining because people are successful. there is nothing wrong with being successful. folks who make less than the wealthy, i think sometimes they're jealous. there probably living in another country or just living in poverty. stop complaining. warren buffett needs to pay his back taxes. he is not god. obama and the mainstream media deceives and distort things continually. people need to know the truth. have a wonderful day. host: a story in "washington

dines." "bills are coming -- a story in "the washington times." "bills are coming due to feed the homeless." "this is not good news and the timing is terrible, says doug roberts, a former michigan state treasurer who leads michigan state university's institute for public policy research. michigan is one of the more than two dozen cash-strapped states facing looming deadlines to pay back almost $40 billion borrowed from the federal government. california must repay some $8.4 billion." from "the new york times pickup in -- "the cold war seemed to be

sliding toward nuclear complex," president john f. kennedy telephoned his wife, jacqueline, and from his voice, she would say later, she could tell that something was wrong. "why don't you come back from washington," he asked, without explanation. it goes on from there, quoting mrs. kennedy herself. she recalled this in an oral history, scheduled to be released one day, many years after the interviews were conducted. only one of three interviews that mrs. kennedy gave after president kennedy's assassination." that, again, will be released on wednesday. they were conducted by arthur rams schlesinger, jr., the historian and kennedy aide. one last call here.

berkeley springs, west virginia. carl, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i look at paying taxes like giving money to charity. if the money is well spent, i have no complaints. but i will give you an instance. when obama gave this company out there, i think it is in california, about $500 million, to make solar panels, and they turn around and put $1 million back into his reelection campaign it makes you think that there is a wink and a not there. -- a wink and a nod there. it is just a game they are playing. it's not only played by obama,

but a lot of politicians out here, especially local government. they will tell the unions, "if you put money into my reelection campaign, we will give you all these great benefits, great pensions." it is the taxpayers that are paying a -- that are picking up the bill. people do not mind paying taxes if their money is well spent, it's just a case of it not being well spent. thank you. host: the story from "usa today," "parry and romani are battling for congressional endorsements." we mentioned earlier that you can catch the republican candidates again on a debate tonight. following tonight's cnn debate, c-span2 will be live from tampa,

florida, for the spin on the debate. also, the debate will air on c- span radio at 11:00 eastern time tonight. one last item before we move on to our next segment. looking at the president's job plan and what it would do, let's look at a couple of the images and stories in the news this morning, reflecting on 9/11. "the washington post" has this. "9/11/11: a somber 10th anniversary." other newspapers had this as their top headline as well today. let's look at "the new york times." after 10 years, names and memories echo. images throughout the news,

morals, ceremonies, and remembrances about 9/11. later in the program, we will start a new segment looking how your money is spent, and we will talk about section 8 housing. we will be right back. >> in an election marred by corruption and scandal, james g. blaine lost the election. "the contenders," live from the

blaine house on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. 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, campaign biographies, and the latest polling data. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. the c-span networks provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. this month, look for congress to continue federal spending into november, including funding for recent natural disasters. keep tabs on the deficit committee as they look to lowering the debt.

follow presidential candidates as they campaigned across the country. it is all available on television, radio, online. c-span video library. and we are on the road with our c-span video bus and local content vehicles. it is washington your way. the c-span networks. greeted by cable, provided as a sub -- a public service. followed by -- follow what members on the debt reduction committee are saying. here is how. from our twitter page, click on the list tab and select the list you want to see. click the following button and get the latest week's from committee members. follow us. "washington journal" continues. host: josh bivens is an economist with the economic

public policy in tier -- institute and kevin hassett from the economic policy -- from the american enterprise institute. how do you think this would help or not help the economy? josh, what part of the president's plan to you think would do the most to help the economy? guest: i think a lot of it is very well that spend money, actually. i am happy with the composition. we have a mammoth unemployment crisis in this country right now. i think the second most effective thing in terms of bang for buck, how many jobs it will create, is the infrastructure spending that is part of it. and then i think the less effective bids will still do

something, the payroll tax cuts. we have had a payroll tax cut for the past year, 2%. this extends it on the employee side, and it also adds cuts to the employer side, and benefits to hiring. it will not do nothing. whether that is the maximum bang for the but you can get, i am not sure. host: the items you just mentioned, the you think those of the least effective elements of the plan? guest: least effective big- ticket items. that i think it's probably the least effective. it does not take a lot of money. it pays for itself in 10 years. it is fine, in my book. it is not crowding out the shelf. the least effective big-ticket item in there is the employer side payroll tax. host: the president is calling

for two and $45 billion in tax cuts, $140 billion in infrastructure and aid to states. $62 billion in unemployment insurance in the hiring -- and hiring. kevin hassett, what is the biggest thing about this plan for you? guest: we are close to going into recession again, and starting with an unemployment rate that is much higher than the last time we started going downward. it is a question of how we should act. some of the president's ideas are good, some of them are not. we're but disagree about the details come up but -- host: what was your initial reaction to the president's speech? he did mention some items that had some republican support. guest: it was actually a big disappointment.

i was so disappointed about his speech, i could not blog. it is not that he is not trying. i am stan that his heart is in the right place, but the fact is we are ignoring the big problems and kicking the can down the road. there are big problems that we need to fix in order to restore certainty and a climate of optimism in our country. having athat we're weak recovery because we have got all these big problems we are not addressing, and the idea that we can ignore the big problems and take a shot of caffeine and get through this year is something we have tried. the problem is the hangover when the caffeine wears off keeps coming back, and that is happening in part because we are ignoring our big problems. the thing that really upset me is that they really did things that need to be addressed. i got so annoyed i could soblog.

ready ideas that we have all thrown away -- our infrastructure is terrible. remember the bridge in minneapolis that collapsed. the fact is that i think the average bridge in the united states is about the same age. there is an enormous amount of investment that we have to make not necessarily to stimulate the economy but to keep our economy running because our infrastructure is falling apart. that is a part that i think -- that is a waste of money. that is the one part that is consistent with the theme of going after a long term problems because we have a long-term problem that our infrastructure is inadequate, old, indicating. host: josh bivens with the economic policy institute, what do you think about the president

saying -- what you think about what kevin is say about missing the mark on big problems? guest: to me what is driving new the hut and a plumber rate is -- is simply a shortfall demand. we know why that shortfall in demand is happening. we had it $8 trillion housing bubble that burst. all the construction of new homes that went on during the bubble has collapsed. what we really need is something to step up and provide the spending until households burden by all their debt that they took on in 2000 have worked that off, feel comfortable, businesses feel comfortable spending up again. it is not a shot of caffeine that will lead to an inevitable hangover, it is spending until the private sector has their balance sheets in order. it is not big enough to fill in the shortfall from the housing

bubble bursting, but i think it attacking the fundamental problem. host: let's get right to the phones. herman found, minnesota. bob joins us from the democrat'' line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one of the biggest thing is you could not do to stimulate the economy it -- one of the biggest thing is you can do to stimulate the economy is put money back in the hands of the consumer. if you could do something to the great social security, you would take money out of the hands of the common consumer there. that money has been earned. it is not a give-away program. what it is is an investment program. we invested the money into show security. -- into social security.

we deserve to get it back. it is not a bailout for the wealthy taxpayers. the third thing i think that could be done is they need to get a handle on the speculating, as far as fuel. fuel is one of the things that costs money. in everything that you buy, delivered by truck, train, or ship, fuel is a part of it. the speculators are taking money out of the pockets of the common consumer because if you have to pay that much for fuel, you are not buying that many more items. that's my comment. host: kevin hassett is nodding his head. what do you think? guest: getting money in the

pocket of consumers is an idea that is consistent with what josh is saying. we need to stop thinking about money in the pockets of consumers, and again, one of the biggest problems is that if you look at past recoveries, 70% or 80% of fluctuation in the business cycle comes from firms investing in capital and inventories. in this cycle, the recovery of investment has been really, really slow in the u.s. a big reason is that we of the highest taxpayers now, and we are not a place where you want to start a new plan. what we need to on social security, i think bob raises a good point. he raises an excellent point. people like us who are a few

decades off from retiring, we probably do not expect to get our full benefit as promised. host: josh bivens? guest: i think money in the pockets of consumers is about -- i think there's some truth to that. i would like to see that money even more targeted. part of the original recovery act, there is a weekly bonus and the think that would be a good thing to replicate. people are cash-strapped. i think he has a good point in terms of -- the spike in gas prices we saw earlier was a drag

on the economy. i do not think there is too much you can do in the short term. i do not know how much speculation it is driving up the prices. if you look at investment in equipment and software, it is quite good. the idea that they're not willing to invest -- it has gone from about 6.9% of gdp to almost 8.5%. i think that is doing ok. it is performing pretty well. thatot sold on businesses are to riveted on the argument. listen tos take a president obama in his speech the other night talking about his desire to see the 2% payroll

tax reduction extended. >> pass the jobs bill and the typical working family will get -- $1500 willut go into your pocket. this expands on the tax-cut democrats and republicans already passed this year. if we refuse to act, middle class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. we cannot let that happen. host: president obama speaking before a joint session of congress, laying out his plan for the economy. we're speaking this morning about that plan and talking to two economist about that plan. kevin hassett is with the

american enterprise institute. let's talk about the tax cut proposals. $175 billion. guest: i think that the payroll tax cut is something -- in part you can say lookout it is working. the fact is that milton friedman talks about why these are bad policies. there is a great review of this argument in the journal of economic literature. if we give you more money this year and take about next year, there are two problems. if it affects you, we'll have more growth this year, but next year we'll have an equal and opposite the fact. the net has to be negative. if it does not affect you, it's

just kind of a waste. you should anticipate that. josh is right. there are people in this economy that are living hand to mouth. if you target tax cuts to people who most need them, the proposal like the president -- i do not think this is a wise policy. host: looking at the numbers. host: what is your reaction, josh bivens? guest: of all of those tax cuts, i think the payroll tax cut is the one i would take. i think it would probably be all

of those things together. if elected the tax cut on the employer side, -- if you look at the tax cut on the employer side, you boost wages for workers. that takes awhile and probably doesn't happen too quickly when unemployment is over 9%. you're giving a windfall to businesses in the short-term. their problem is they do not want to invest because there are not too many customers coming in the door. this will not solve the real issue. cutting one side is worth trying. there is a crowded for additions to payroll as part of it but that may have some bang for the buck. host: explain that to us.

guest: if you add new bodies, there is a credit and it is capped at a relatively high amount. so most firms will get the full amount of the credits. a lot of this stuff is tempered and has to be paid for it down the road. we are hopefully in a temporary slump. host: phoenix, arizona. laura. caller: i agree with both of the economists. it seems to me that it is a bigger picture -- the economy is so complex. i do not see enough research

from one administration to the next to allow the incoming administration to make wise decisions on the current events. they changed every day and they change quickly. i and stan it is complex -- i understand it is complex. our leaders have other agendas. it gets depressing. if we're going to make jobs, we need to provide incentives were those jobs that are created are going to then produce as good or create an export that will in the end pay for the payroll tax cut or to the employer and to the employee. i hope that was understandable.

i do not see enough leadership or research or enough of the things being done with real fought in them. guest: i think that laura is right and of both parties are guilty of this. the thought that is not happening in the white house right now and the thought that needs to happen is the recognition that it is common after a big financial crisis, for to take a long time to dig your way out. a colleague gave a paper at the jacksonville fed conference where they looked at the history of other countries who have had serious crises and found it is typical within a decade of a financial crisis the unemployment rate is about double the start of the crisis.

i will blog always. for me, we need to recognize that have a long-term problem and to address it, we have to go after the big things. even if we do gin up the will comethe handovgover anytime of slow-growth. look at japan. the amount of government spending that they tried it was historic. but it never really dug their way out because they were ignoring the big problems. what is missing is some sort of historical perspective because we are in something that we are not experienced in a long time. host: the ability to look back

and to put it in perspective -- are the conversations happening at a level that takes into account what is happened previously in other countries? guest: probably not. but i think that history is pretty mixed. countries that have seen a financial crisis take a long time to recover. the reason why they take so long to recover is because they do not take aggressive enough measures. a failure of the political system. in this country, we have outsourced fighting to the fed. we thought they will adjust short-term interest rates.

the rest of the government does not have to do anything. the fed's ability to fight the recession has been overwhelmed. now we need other things. a large package like the recovery act. the fact that countries that have seemed a financial crisis take a long time to recover is more of a political crisis. we're still not doing the big enough stuff. the historyaware of that kevin is talking about but i have a different take on it. caller: i hear a lot of the blame game going on this morning. in the last 10 years, we have had 54,000 -- go overseas.

then we turn around and give them tax breaks. then we talk about should the rich be taxed? they have too much money to play with. they are thinking about their pocketbooks. host: what do you think? guest: we have not mentioned globalization in here and we probably should not talk about the economic without talking about that. i think there's a real problem in the united states. we have chronic trade deficits. basically people cutting back on spending on everything. imports are part of that. it is growing again and a think that is a drag on growth.

make exports be an engine of growth. look at those countries -- tell them to revalue their currency. china is the biggest example. we have a policy lever that could create some jobs. make u.s. exports more competitive. that should be addressed. guest: i think the caller is correct. if you think about our tax code, we have companies that face the following deal from us. if you separate subsidiary in a

foreign country as a low tax rates, you can transfer your profits through that subsidiary and not have a lot of profits here in the u.s. it encourages people to move things offshore to avoid u.s. tax. it's a stupid policy. we need to address the whole thing, not just lower the rate. we should not be surprised if that is the deal we are offering people, that they are doing it overseas. we're subsidizing these guys so look at all the jobs overseas. let's ignore that and try to stimulate consumption right now. we have to lose that attitude if we want to turn this country around. host: we have some numbers from

"congressional quarterly." host: how do you change those numbers, or how do you react to those specific numbers? are we talking about a massive stimulus? guest: i would have a fiscal consolidation where we get the deficit in order but we do things like change the indexing formula for social security so that we get a smaller benefit when we retire. tried to have long-term fixes for medicare and medicaid to pull in some money. and use that money. fix the individual side, which

is a total mess. i think that a professor at berkeley and i wrote a book and said if we had a big fundamental reform that was revenue neutral and at the same -- as the current code, you could buy between half a% and 1% over a decade growth. that is about the scale of the shortfall because of the financial crisis. that's the kind of big thinking we need to have to turn things around. host: what do you make of those numbers? guest: construction is very large. the housing bubble. how broadbased it is. people often focus on

construction and occasioned you hear that the real sector is getting all the jobs and jobs are being lost everywhere -- the rail sector. manufacturing is a very cyclical sector. if we have enough spending to support a recovery, manufacturing will disproportionately affected. allon't have the policy pointing in the same direction. if you do nothing about exchange rates -- it will be nice to see all policy levers pulled am pointing in the same direction. host: steve on the democrats line. caller: i think the jobs package

should have been about $2 trillion or more. get the infrastructure fix, all the roads and bridges. if you take and hire people and get a green jobs going, because we need to get off of oil and stuff like that, because it is not doing the environment and the good. these people that holler about people making money, i think that's so silly, saying you need to get their wages down to what we're making down in the real world. you need to be making more money and you need to start taxing these rich a lot more so they will start spending their money here instead of overseas. host: $2 trillion compared to

the president's plan. what would that do, $2 trillion into the economy? guest: it would be hard to spend that much in a year. i am on the high end of what the economy should be getting in terms of fiscal spending. host: what is the number? guest: there is about it $1 trillion output gap. that is if all the people were back to work. a well-designed stimulus package, probably about $700 billion. so $2 trillion is even higher than i wanted.

$2 trillion spread over 10 years to give the economy a boost, that would be great. look at the infrastructure gap. how much money which should be spending and paying for it in the long run, then i think $2 trillion would be a reasonable number. but $2 trillion in one year is more than what i think the economy needs. guest: steve has a strong argument. we have that a debt downgrade. we have a massive deficit. the debt on by foreigners is about 20% higher than a was historically for the typical latin american countries that

default on its debt. even if you think the $2 trillion would buy you at gdp, the stimulus will go away and we will be stuck with the big problems. that is why i would not do it. host: james asks on twitter. at whitehouse.gove a detailed sketch. host: we are hearing from the a.p. that the president will speak in the rose garden and ask

for rate swift passage of his jobs bill. he may be in the rose garden to send that jobs plan to congress. rick from michigan, republican. caller: your guests represent two different points of view. i do not want one guy to speak to me at all. the one problem in the government is the federal reserve. we have been under the thumb of the reserve from 1913. these people are running the economy. obama cannot do anything. the congress has given up their

constitutional responsibility. we need to redo this whole thing. the system is broke. we pay a gasoline tax. that is supposed to pay all the road costs. we're paying too much tax as it is. we need to eliminate the federal income tax. the others need to be looked at. we have to look at the monetary system. if you print another $447 billion -- we are broke. host: does get reaction.

what did you think about his comments? -- let's get reaction. guest: he doesn't want me to talk because i do not agree with this point of view. one of the big problems of the federal reserve is that it is not doing as much as it could be doing to fight the recession. you have ben bernanke doing a lot of pretty aggressive moves. he has not done big quantitative easing before. the measure should be, are they effective enough? i would like to see the federal reserve even more aggressive. it. pretty happy we have t host: green bay, wisconsin.

caller: i have no confidence at all in this jobs plan. we tried this and it did not take. they are temporary positions. will we need to do is cut the tax rate, the federal income tax rate on manufacturing companies to zero. you just think about this. you go to a carl lot that cost $21,000 that will be selling for $15,000, $16,000. if we do not do this now, we will be in trouble. guest: i agree that some kind of big tax measure combined with other things is what we need right now. the example sound like ronald

address old radio where this goes into the price of bread and if you cut the price of bread, you lower the cost. that was onetime tax policy was explained that appealed to voters. i think we're in deep trouble and we have to take deep action. i want to talk about the fed. josh is fun to talk to. the thing about the threat of wanted to say -- the thing about the fed i wanted to say, we do understand what the criticism is. they have expose us to inflationary risk.

it has pumped all the reserves into the banks. this is like pushing on a string. the reserves become money. if it becomes out of hand, you get inflation. in amountey've taken of inflation risk. you cannot attribute that to the fed. the fed has stimulated but they have not done anything that would create a constitutional crisis, in my mind. host: we have some information about what congress has done over the past four years to stimulate job growth. there was an economic stimulus

plan. president obama came into office and there was the stimulus program that we covered here that cost over $787 billion . host: evarts the congress has taken -- efforts that congress has taken. guest: the most effective things they have done, infrastructure spending works. there has been one criticism -- and itt shovel-ready takes too long to spend. we were pushing for

infrastructure spending to be part of the stimulus package but we were told it was not timely enough. have extended unemployment for a long time. i think that is very effective. aid to distress people is very effective. it helps people get through a tough time. aid to state and local companies is effective. those workers then have money to spend. those are the most effective things you can do in this type of environment. guest: we take it and we feel bad and we take it again. we have to stop and recognize our addiction and move on.

host: jerry asks a philosophical question. host: how you respond to that? -- how do you respond to that? on a different were network, i would say we disagree because josh is an idiot. it is the construction of the show that creates the appearance of mass and disagreements. if we were to list 20 topics, 16 of them would be close an four

or 5 we would not. it is the four we're talking about right now. there's a lot of agreement that might be missed because we're saying lots of things all at once. i agree we should invest more in infrastructure. i agree that if we're going to in a money right now "ista "stimulus" -- those people are needy. the unemployment rate is humongous. the big disagreement i sense -- that we can continue to ignore that and i don't think so. we can go in to the depths of why we have a disagreement. host: josh bivens? guest: i think he is right.

we're disagreeing because we read the literature differently. i think the big disagreement is the diagnosis of what unemployment is so high today. a simple short fall in demand. other things are at work. i think you are in favor of work sharing. guest: there is one footnote in the president's presentation. guest: kevin can explain it work sharing better. using unemployment funds to subsidize it shorter hours. you should collect a portion of unemployment when some of your hours get cut back. there is money in the plan for

that. guest: jerry talked about the politics of it. if your attic think tank then what you're trying to do is -- if you are at the think tank, you try to make the world better. you'll take it from any politician who will do that. . nepeople think a.i. is more right-leaning. obama embraced the policies that i have been pushing which caused the celebration. we want to change policy. we want to to help enact laws with our research.

host: kevin hassett is with the american enterprise institute. he served as an advisor to the john mccain campaign. he worked as an economist for the board of governors back in the 1990's. he was a policy consultant during the administrations of george h. w. bush and president clinton. josh bivens is an economist economic policy institute with the economic policy institute, epi.com. he is been an economist since 2002. we are talking about the president's jobs plan. there is details on the website.

we will be seeing the bill today, according to news reports. daniel rights on twitter -- let's go to daytona beach, florida, to hear from louise. caller: i wanted to talk about president obama's jobs plan. jeb bush eliminated the tangible tax on stocks and bonds which benefited only the wealthy people. it cost $1.8 billion a year in revenue. those lost dollars were made up of cutting programs for the elderly, the poor, infrastructure. we got 81 ser school tax break for school supplies.

it saved us $18 a year. we have a multimillionaire turned governor, wrecks scott, who rates government and he wants no federal money from the jobs program. we're hurting so bad for jobs here in florida. wages are low. everything is geared to please rich retirees. balance the budget and the deficit. reinstate the intangible tax on the wealthy. it is a nuisance tax. miss it.l not even now s guest: i am not aware of the nuisance tax. there is a problem with the debate in the short run.

we have unemployment which is too high. we need someone to step up and do the spending needed to get unemployed people back to work. we have a deficit that is projected to be too large for most economist's comfort and how best to close that gap. some people think we'll have the long run deficit problem. if the discussion is how best to close those projected gaps, i agree a lot with the caller. we need to think about who was benefit from economic growth and take into account. in the short term, we should be trying to make the deficit bigger over the next year or two, because that means more

spending power in the economy. deficits are supposed to hurt you by driving up interest rates. the government is still borrowing at historically cheap interest rates. the private sector is starved for more spending. bigger deficits in the next year or two. let's take into account who can afford to pay and who cannot. host: do you think we're fighting a pr war? there is talk in the congress about deficit and spending and about fighting debt. guest: people who say, "i want the deficit bigger" -- that is the ticket out of respectable debate.

there are plenty of people to blame for that. it is a problem that when the economy was still very soft, to o many calls to members shifted to the problem of long run deficits. i think that was a premature shift. the economy suffered because of that. it is a big pr to get people to realize that a smaller deficit is not always what the country needs. in fact, it needs the direct opposite. guest: i will give some pr advicet to josh. if we look at the expense is the government will have, we have to

pay for those. do we pay for them now or later? maybe you have some room for growth. in the end, we have to pay for what we spend. give us a big deficit now combined with things that happen in the future so we can get back to it sustainable level of debt to gdp. if you do that, in and the end, it will all work out, then people will not throw you out of the conversation. guest: our organization, epi, has such a plan. we stabilize debt to gdp

ratios. there have been competing voices out there that talked about lowering the deficit no matter what. people sit check it out if interested. host: alexandria, virginia. caller: i will be brief. we pay all the deficits the day after the sun explodes, right? if we were to spend any money, it would need to be spent on the money who are unemployed because they are the most likely to spend. a previous caller said that it is complicated. politicians have made it much more complicated. if we were going to try to

reform the tax code, what will prevent the politicians trying to tweak it and tweak it and so we'll have a 7000-page tax code again? guest: there was a piece in "the wall street journal" 15 years ago where he talked about tax code dynamic. the cynical view would be politicians finance their campaign by selling favors. then we have a messy code and it is hard to sell anything to anybody. happens, we have a

tax reform. i would have to say that that looks like -- they did sweep out the stables i. we might be ready for tax reform politically, not because we need want economically. we have reached that point again were the code is so complicated that people who want to sell favors will of a hard time doing that. host: a breakdown of the president's plan. host: let's listen to the president speaking in his jobs

speech on thursday about school, transportation, and infrastructure projects. >> will modernize at least 35,000 schools. we will put people to work right now in classrooms all across this country. we will rehabilitate homes and businesses hit hardest by foreclosures. it will jump-start thousands of transportation projects all across the country. host: do you think it will be effective? guest: it will put people back to work. the big criticism is if it does not happen next month, it's not worth doing. when these projects come on line, it will be a big help to the job market. you get the short run benefit of more people working in the long

run benefit of a better economy. guest: i have not seen enough of the proposals. but this is a solid one. and infrastructure bank could find public-private partnerships, help municipalities raise money. in canada, they have invested all lot in public as private partnerships to things like infrastructure, lending. i think it is a solid idea. it leads a path to restoring some solemn say. -- solvency. raising an enormous amount of money. moving towards be more rational about the way we run

transportation is a defensible thing. i've advocated a federal reserve of infrastructure. why is with highways to no worker in west virginia but the bridges are collapsing along the mississippi river? politicians have to much of a say. -- too much of a say. host: let's go to georgia. perry, welcome. i think we lost perry. let's move on to tracy. caller: good morning. three things. i cannot believe that kevin called milton friedman a great thinker. ask the people in south america about that.

the jobs plan should be bigger. tax cuts to not create jobs. if they did, we would be in a boom right now. move on with the tax cuts. host: do you think the stimulus the president put ford should have been bigger and more focused on infrastructure? caller: yes, i do. and i think it worked. host: tracy says the stimulus worked. this is what matt says on twitter. guest: we have a couple of things. the stimulus did not work. i do not think it was the correct medicine. there was no evidence it was harmful.

it probably helped some. friedman was a good guy. we have tried tax cuts already. those who want to get their google heated up this morning can go back and checked. i had a piece that opposed the bush tax cuts. my main concern was the kind of things we have been talking about today. the u.s. has a weird corporate tax system. i thought there was a serious problem with the bush tax cuts. they give up a lot of money but not used the money to fix the problems. when do we avoid the long term problems or try to get away with ignoring things?

i would say the bush tax cuts were the moment when things began to get out of hand. right-wing and left-wing economists would listings you would want to change. we have tried tax cuts. president clinton tried to increase the corporate tax rates. that's the last corporate tax increase on earth. the average was about 40%. now it is about 24%. we have not tried my medicine. the rest of the world has changed and so it is urgent we do so. guest: on the second package that was passed in 2009 -- most people forget the first

one. i think the obama one was very effective. it created about 2 million to 4 million jobs. host: which led to a seen a bigger -- would you have liked to us in a bigger? guest: yes, absolutely. we probably will have to do more and more things to provide more support to the economy. it it it could have been bigger or could have kept coming back to the problem of jobs. look at private sector forecasters. they are unanimous. it is created or saved 3 million jobs.

people are skeptical about the stimulus package. they say move the economy. on the point about tax cuts, policy,t tried kevin's but we have cut taxes in a big way. the tax side, cut the amount of revenue the government is collecting. at some point, i felt like a pervert policies by never going to be implemented -- i feel like perfect policies will never be implemented. host: this is the president on the corporate tax.

>> that stance as a monument to special interest. we can't lower one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. our tax code should not give an advantage to companies that can afford the best connected lobbyists. host: kevin hassett, can you get behind that? guest: the rhetoric is good. the treasury has been working on a tax reform proposal to go separate this thing we've been talking about. we subsidize firms to locate off shore so they can transfer profits there. there was a story that said we would see a plan in may, but we did not see the plan in may.

they are coming out with a plan sometime soon. they are smart, come from people at the treasury, and i'm looking for to see what the plan is. the president's rhetoric is spot on. it changes the tax treatment of international activity and that could help things at home. host: josh bivens with the economic policy institute, what do you think of that idea? guest: there is tons of room to make the tax code more efficient and more fair. i am not an expert on that. that is not an mike wheelhouse of interest -- that is not in my

interest.elhouse of that requires a much more serious discussion. you can't make it revenue neutral and make a much more efficient and fair. host: michael in atlanta, republican call. caller: this request may seem ludicrous, but which to be willing to discuss the outcome if the u.s. placed a boycott on all countries for assembled products? any country could ship parts and the u.s. could ship parts to be assembled in each country. thank you. guest: the idea out would be that we would let a foreign automaker ship all the parts here but then we would have to assemble them. that would introduce an enormous inefficiency and would cost us a

lot of jobs. i can remember the guy at heritage committee proposal -- outlaw taxicabs and make everybody go round in rickshaws. there would be slower, but there would be a lot of rickshaw drivers. require everybody to go around in a rickshaw. i think this assembly idea weeks of that -- reeks of that. we're all better off that we can import chinese clothing because the alternative is that we can create jobs here home if we made our own clothing. but if i made my own clothing, it would not look as good. host: what do you think? guest: i think it is too

sweeping. globalization is making it tough on lots of workers. i think we to think long and hard about who is winning and who's losing. es.re are cleaner fix i would go back to my exchange rate issue. most trade is probably more parts than assembly. i am sure will bring over some fully assembled cars. i'm not sure how effective it would be. host: youngstown, ohio, kay on our democrats line. caller: i never hear anyone speak of the devastation in this world. you think of katrina, the fires in texas, the floods, hurricanes

-- there is so much devastation. there is not enough people collect all these jobs. bridges and roads that have been destroyed, some by nature. host: is there a way to get americans back to work rebuilding america? guest: that is true. we have not mention that. communities should be made whole. we should make those communities whole. today we can make them all and help the overall economy. we should probably say more but i take it as a given that that's

something we should do. guest: the most recent hurricane that went through in washington, d.c. -- we had eight minor hurricane experience. it was astonishing what happened up in new england. the covered bridge where used to go swimming just washed away. there are people that have those things happen to them and very often we forget. in terms of policy, that is no place where josh and i are in agreement. you never know where disaster will strike. every town -- they hopefully will not get a disaster except for every100 years. week to look at -- we need to

look at how the government will respond. host: kevin hassett is th host: we're talking about the president's proposal to boost job than the economy. the president plans to send that the congress. let's take a look at the numbers. since we're talking about jobs and jobless americans come here is what a labor department says about who is unemployed. 8% is the on employment rate for women. 9% for men.

frances, independent line. caller: hi, the morning. thank you for having me on -- hi, good morning. thank you for having me on. i just want to say, the infrastructure and the buildings from all the floods and tornadoes -- this is all jobs. i agree with the previous caller. we have the resources and manpower. we have the labor. everybody needs jobs and stuff. the rest of it, the unemployment -- i am sure there are people that have to have unemployment that cannot participate in the work of art we have available. fine. for the life of me, i cannot

understand or even reason why we would allow the tax cuts to have gone on for as long as they have gone on. and they insisted on tax cuts through 2/13, when we had a war that wasn't paid for -- two wars that we did not have paid for. we had a drug prescriptions that we did not -- the drug prescriptions that we did not pay for. we had storms, we had katrina down here, we had tornadoes, floods, irene, all that stuff. we have a deficit and we are losing jobs.

that should have never taken place. let host: get a -- host: let's get a response. josh bivens. guest: absolutely. we should mobilize whatever forces we need. host: she was concerned about the bush tax cuts. she thinks that is the wrong direction. guest: i would agree with that. i never agreed with the bush tax cuts. at the end of 2010, there was the compromise struck between the obama administration and republicans in progress for the two-year extension -- in congress for the two-year extension. in exchange, there is the extension of unemployment insurance for 2011 and the payroll tax cut. i do not know where i stand on the wisdom of that deal. i have a lot of sympathy for it, coming from someone who thinks that unemployment insurance and

apparel tax cut did provide some support for the economy -- and the payroll tax cut did provide some support for the economy. guest: i think the bush tax cuts were extended because there are a lot of democrats, even keynesians, who think that, if the economy is weak, it is a bad time for a tax hike. president obama said of he was running for office. -- said that while he was running for office. you cannot have tax cuts if you're going to spend like drunken sailor, and that is what president bush did. he spent a crazy and he had tax cuts. that is not consistent. if you want on interest of tax rates, then you need to have not interested government -- non- intrusive tax rate, then you need to have non-intrusive

government. we need to look at things like the infrastructure projects that we want to do and figure out what it costs to pay for that and make sure we have the tax code in place to do that. if you want tax cuts come you have to cut government spending. that provides and natural sort of political barrier to going to far. there are things like infrastructure that people value a lot. if you're going to cut that, you will have a hard time getting political momentum for your tax cuts. i think it is absolutely wrong. i also think that the conversation about the bush tax cuts is too emotional. if i was a relationship counselor for democrats and republicans, i would tell them to stop talking about the bush tax cuts. president bush took the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. if you study economic models and you think about what happens if you go from 39.6% to 35%, it is

really hard to get emotional about that. it is not really big chains. it is not like from 70% to 20%. -- really a big change, like what reagan did, from 70% to 28%. when we get involved in the stat -- they happen within the code that is indefensible. we need tax reform. we should never talk about the bush tax cuts ever again. we should drop them and build a code that can mean the economy grow going forward. we will not put anybody's name going forward. host: let's hear about president obama's plan. money to hire teachers. >> the plan extends unemployment insurance for another year. if the millions of unemployed americans stop giving this insurance and stop using that

money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy. democrats and republicans in this chamber have supported unemployment insurance plenty of times in the past. and this time a prolonged hardship, you should pass it right again. host: epi, what do you think -- josh bivens, what do you think that would do? guest: it would be good for people looking for jobs and it would be good for the economy. on an. this money to people who, almost by definition -- on unemployment, this is money to people who, almost by definition, need to spend it. guest: when you give statistics of how terrible unemployment statistics are -- the long term unemployment problem causes the

most long-term concern. i think we have taken a kind of cyclical problem of unemployment and watched it become a structural problem. as people are out of the work force for a long time, it gets harder to reconnect to them. what we should have done at the onset is switched to the work sharing thing, where employers are encouraged not to lay workers off. government will help compensate when you cut the hours. if we had spent a lot of money on that, we would not necessarily need to have 99 weeks -- really extended unemployment insurance benefits. when -- it is subsidizing people to stay out of the work force for a long time. it is easy to get frustrated looking for a job. it is sad when you lose a job that pays x and you have to take

a job that pays a lot less than x. a person who is over 60 take something like a 30% pay cut when they go back to work. having 99 weeks of unemployment insurance subsidizes the problem. we should have smart, modern unemployment insurance, like they have been the most of europe, that keeps people in the work force to begin with. now that we have this problem of long-term unemployment -- the one fact i would add, looking at seniors, because people over 60, even 50, who have lost their jobs tend to be rehired more slowly. they are a big share of the unemployed. we have to come up with some ideas to get them back in and be attentive to the fact that a lot of them -- a disproportionate share -- our seniors who are maybe not ready to invest a year or two to invest in the work

force. host: these are numbers from the congressional quarterly. let's hear about the obama talking about money to hire teachers. >> passed the jobs bill and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work -- pass the jobs bill and thousands of teachers in every state will go back to work. while they are adding teachers in places like south korea, we are laying them off in droves. it is not fair to our kids. it undermines their future and our is. it has to stop. pass this bill and put our teachers back in the classroom where they belong. host: kevin hassett, what do you think about the idea of getting teachers money for hiring them?

guest: i support the federal government money going toward routers for -- vouchers so that they can pick out their own schools. a lot of states and municipalities have budget constraints that the federal government does not have. i think those budget constraints have been a good thing. they have kept them from getting into the bizarre shape that we're in, but they have had some negative effects. they want to have bipartisan agreement for the stimulus. i would support spending money on charter schools. host: josh bivens, what do you think about that? here is something else to ping off of.

what is the best way to get people back to work? what is the best technique? question.h biveit's a good i have a friend to look at the trend of state and local education unemployment over the past 10 years and over the past three. we are about 700,000 people below where that trend says we should be. what is going on here is a fiscal crisis and people being laid off in droves. i do not think that is the best way to conduct our reasoned way to figure out how to make schools better. i think we have our real problem with government employment, especially state and local. anything that helps stop the hemorrhage is a good thing. i think the wpa style could be a very good thing and has been mostly ignored in a lot of the jobs packages so far.

there has been some legislation about it. for things that are less capital-intensive, you could hire people to do the labor- intensive and valuable work of cleaning up communities. mowing yards, fixing houses that have been foreclosed on, making sure neighborhoods do not fallen to blight. the summer employment fourteens program in the original stimulus package is very cost -- a sort teenagers -- for teenagers program in the original stimulus package is very cost- effective. guest: if they have hired people at the median wage, they would have created something like 23 million jobs. direct hiring is a much quicker way to get a job. we have this long term unemployment problem. it is probably a point in u.s. history where smart, direct

hiring is probably something everybody should consider. it is a way to connect people back to the work force. host: cape coral, florida. dina, a republican caller. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i want to ask kevin, how are you against unemployment insurance? i find that hard to do. i do know that it does make it worse. it makes the situation worse, however, there are so many millions of people, families, children just depending on it. it is hard for me to be against it. it is 99 weeks. does like everything else the government does, they do not do it well -- just like everything else the government does, they

do not do it well, but it does help. it enables people to stay not working. .ost: let's leave it there we're almost out of time. are you concerned about what happens when people run out of money because they just cannot find a job? guest: sure. everybody is concerned about. work-sharing could help, because it slows job destruction. i am not against unemployment insurance at all. i just want to structure an employment insurance in a way that does not subsidize the creation of a structural problem. if we need to get ex-thousand dollars to people when they lose their jobs, i am willing to give them their money and let them keep the money if they find a drop early. maybe we can negotiate how much that is. i think that this subsidizes long-term unemployment in a way that i am not comfortable with.

i would much rather give people lump-sum on employment insurance so that they can actually shepherd their resources well in these difficult times and not subsidize the creation of a problem. host: the states with the highest unemployment are nevada with nearly 13%, california with 12%, michigan and south carolina with 10%, and rhode island at 10.8%. josh bivens, does this plan do anything to help homeowners? guest: it is my understanding -- i do not know that is part of this or separate initiative -- but they are talking about having fannie mae, freddie mac ease the path to refinance or underwater mortgage holders -- for underwater mortgage holders. it is definitely something we should look for. guest: there is nothing really on the second answer -- housing

sector. the typical financial crisis that was studied by my colleague -- he found that 10 years after the crisis, realistic prices were about 85% of what they were right before -- real-stestate prices were about 85% of what they were right before it. host: kevin hassett and josh bivens, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: the president will be delivering a statement on the american jobs that this morning at 10:40. c-span2 will be there carrying back. you'll be at the rose garden. he will outline more about his speech -- he will be at the rose garden. he will outline more about his speech. we will start a new series looking at how your money is spent. our guest is denise muha from

the rental assistance program. here is a news update. >> it is 17:00 -- 9:17. tim pawlenty is endorsing republican presidential candidate mitt romney, calling the former massachusetts governor, the candidate who " possesses the unique qualifications to confront our severe economic predicament." a former minnesota governor left the 2012 race last month after losing in the iowa straw poll. the romney campaign sent out a letter announcing that mr. pawlenty will be an advisor going forward, naming him a national co-chairman of the running for president campaign. olympic -- former olympic athlete carl lewis is a working to get on the ballot in new jersey for new art -- for november's state senate election. last week, a judge agreed that mr. lewis should not be on the ballot because he does not meet the residency requirement.

mr. lewis has owned homes in new jersey since 2005, but also pays taxes and utilities on homes in california. in international news, the french nuclear safety authority say there has been an explosion at a nuclear plant which killed one person and seriously injured three others. the spokesman said there are no radiation leaks outside the plant at this time. the site is located in southern france, near the mediterranean sea. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> any given night in america, more than 640,000 men, women, and children are without housing. >> we have a family, a network of friends, a network of may be a church or school. we have people who will hold us up if we fall down. a homeless person has lost all of those contacts. >> i think the most common stereotype is that folks are homeless because they are not

trying or that they are lazy or victims of their own lack. >> should the federal government spend our tax money to help these people? >> there is definitely an important role for the government in ending poverty. some people feel the government should stay out of social- service work and that jurors should be doing it -- churches should be doing it or there should not be any help for them. >> that is one of the winners from last year's studentcam competition. you can see all of the winning videos online. is under's studentcam way. the topic is "the constitution and you." or information @ studentcam.org -- get more information at studentcam.org. >> look for federal spending to

continue for reason national disasters -- recent national disasters. follow the presidential candidates as the campaign across the country. it is all available to you on radio, television, online, and on social media websites. search, watch, share any time with our seas and video library -- c-span video library. it is washington, your way. the c-span networks, created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every monday at this time, we will have a segment called " your money." we will look and not just what the programs cost, but what they do -- look at not just what the program's cost, but what they do. our guest is denise muha with

the national leased housing association. democrats -- (202)624-1111. republicans -- (202)624-1115. independents -- (202)624-0760. and if you live in section 8 (202)737-all us at * 2579. denise muha, what is what is referred to as section 8 housing? guest: it is a rental assistance program. it is rental assistance that comes in the two forms. one is attached to a particular property. the housing choice voucher program is a piece of paper that folks qualify and can use

to rent apartments anywhere in the country. host: talk to us about the difference between the housing projects versus using the money and living someplace else that is mixed housing, more of a mixed-income bracket area. guest: i think the positive thing about the voucher program is it offers people more choice. the project helps develop housing or did develop housing over the years. there are properties that exist for low-income people. host: how do you qualify for rental assistance? guest: it is all about income. most people aren't 30% below the median. you can have income -- most people earn 30% below the

median. host: how do you actually qualify and get involved? guest: you have to apply. the easiest way to apply is to go to your local housing agency or housing authority. generally, they have long waiting lists. they will pre qualify you to make sure your income is low enough to be eligible. they'll check your income and those kinds of things. if you are trying to apply to our particular building, you go to that building and get -- to a particular building, you go to that building and get on their waiting list. host: the budget request for the fiscal year 2012 breaks down this way. the total is $19.2 billion. $17 billion of that would go to the renewal of section 8 vouchers. $1.6 billion to the related fees for the vouchers. $111 million for section 811

doctors, for people with disabilities. those numbers are from hud. how does the spending look? guest: the house just marked up to their bill. they did not cut the section 8 program. there were very close to what the white house requested. to cut that assistance is to cut assistance directly from families, so that has a big impact. it would be seen immediately. in this economy, it is just not doable. host: section 8 residents, you can call us at (202)737-2579. good morning. caller: good morning. i am disabled. i was looking at that number for disabled. i am under a program that

alabama -- one of the people here that helps people that don't have -- need somewhere to stay. they are getting funded from the government. there is an organization called lighthouse counseling center. they got me into a hud-status apartment as disabled. i started out downstairs, then they put me upstairs. by me being disabled, i talked to the counselor and she says there's no money to move

anywhere else. can i ask how much money as been funded to my program -- has been funded to my program? host: how much funding has been provided? guest: he is talking about a state program, which i am not that familiar with. because he is disabled, the first thing i would do is ask the folks up on the program for reasonable accommodation because you are having trouble living on one floor and doing the stairs. under the fair housing act, there are provisions that they would have to provide at reasonable but not -- reasonable accommodation to you. guest: -- host: how does it break down federally versus state and local assistance?

guest: there is very little state and local assistance and i am not that familiar with it. folks rely on the federal government to provide housing assistance. host: got? -- dot? you are on the program with denise muha. go ahead. caller: i am calling from fayetteville, north carolina. here, they say they don't have any more section 8 housing. i am still on section 8, but they are telling people that section 8 is not here anymore, that they do not have the program anymore, that they are not taking any more vouchers. host: maybe there are not taking people at the moment versus the program has run out altogether. caller: they are saying they are not giving out any more vouchers.

they are not taking any more section 8. host: let's get a response. guest: you already received section 8, correct? if you are a receive that, you will not lose it, as long as you meet the requirements. the housing authority probably has a very full waiting list. they probably closed the waiting list. they are not taking any more names. that's my guess. host: louise? caller: i am concerned about the discrimination going on against people who do receive section 8. sometimes, when you search for a house, it will say no section 8, no dogs. what can be done to prevent the source of income discrimination against people who receive

section 8? i know, in new york city, there are laws. throughout new york state, there are not. i'm wondering if there is any type of effort from the federal government to put pressure on state government to prevent this type of discrimination, because it concentrates the pore in high crime areas -- poor in high- crime areas. guest: this is an interesting question. if the government were to require that all landlords excepted vouchers, there would be a backlash against the program. i do not endorse that. there are communities across the country. you mentioned your city. baltimore county is one locally in the ec -- in d.c. it does not allow for discrimination. you have to do your due

diligence. it may open units that may not become available. there is still the rent issue. if the rent is not reasonable, the voucher-holder would not be approved anyway. it is definitely a problem we face. i am sympathetic to it, but it would be detrimental to make it a federal mandate. host: there is a piece by the author of "attention deficit democracy." he says, "remarkably, hud -- what's your thought on that?

guest: that is a very interesting opinion. i would disagree. we certainly support the violence against women act. the fact is that it is not a protected class, being a victim of domestic violence is not a protected class. that raises more questions than it answers. he raises a good point. there are people who can get on the waiting list sooner. if they are evicted, they have to certify their status. that was a weird opinion. host: richard, good morning. caller: good morning. i am disabled. i have been on the waiting list for about five years.

about six months ago, i received a letter from the santa clara housing authority, backdating it by a month, that i was taken off the list. i had to write a letter to the hud director and the person in charge of the santa clara county housing authority that that was wrong. that took three months. recently, i received a letter that i was put back on the list, but it was way, way back than it was before. i would probably have to wait another six years. from my perspective, in dealing with this particular section 8 program here in the county of santa clara, especially where i live, we have seen section 8 being given to legal immigrants. i want you to, if you could, please address that.

i want to thank you very much. thank you for c-span. guest: first of all, i am sorry you are having that problem. centocor is one of the best housing authorities in the country -- santa clara is one of the best housing authorities in the country. i would go and see the executive director of the agency to get you out on a higher place on the list. you should not be penalized for that. with regard to illegal immigrants, the law does not allow section 8 subsidies to be provided to folks who are in this country illegally. if that happened, it should not happen. it is against the law. host: let's hear from james in atlanta, georgia. sorry i cut you off. caller: yes, what i would like to say is that i live in

subsidized housing. it seems like there is a problem. host: what's the problem? what's the problem, james? caller: what i noticed is that subsidy programs seem like -- did you cut me off? host: no, turn down your tv. go ahead. caller: it seems like all of the attacks are on the poor. host: all i got was james' comment was he was saying there are attacks on the poor. let's go back to this idea of when you are brought into a middle-income neighborhood -- you do not have to eat live in a project, but you can use the

subsidy voucher -- have to live use project, but you cayou can the subsidy voucher to live somewhere else, is there discrimination? guest: for landlords, is a steady source of income. -- it is a steady source of income. it comes down to screening and due diligence. host: denise muha is the executive director of the national leased housing association. donnie in washington state. hi, there. guest: hi. i am in washington state. i have personally known so many people on section 8 housing who are abusing the system by hiding their income.

i believe wholeheartedly in the section 8 program, because i know handicapped people who really need it. the cuts they have made -- so many people are having their boyfriends or girlfriends with income living with them. when they get their notice that they are having an inspection, these wage-earning people move out temporarily. it is the responsibility of the landlord to do more out for vacation -- more verification. abuse is rampant and i think that hurts the program drastically. guest: i absolutely agree that hurts the program. hud has a program where they can

match the income data from folks who were recently hired in the state. you are talking about families that have somebody living there that is not on the lease, contributing to the income of the household. it is another problem. you're right that households -- landlords need to be more diligent. a lot of the landlords are mom- and-pops. they do not have the experience or the wherewithal to keep tabs on the kind of thing. a property would project-based assistance -- that is unlikely to happen. -- in a property with project- based assistance, that is unlikely to happen. host: we mentioned that $1.6 billion in related fees for about shares -- for vouchers. what are these fees for?

who do they go to? is the money going to banks? is it -- sounds like waste. guest: it is used to check up on it applications, see whether people are eligible, hire inspectors -- check out on applications, see whether people are eligible, hire inspectors. the fees are a little bit low at this point. some housing authorities have had to lay off people. host: looking at some other numbers -- the hud public housing request for 2012. what does this particular program? guest: public housing was built by the federal government and is operated by housing agencies.

section 8 is privately owned. public housing is funded, as you mentioned, through capital and fun -- capital and federal agencies. hud is trying to push a program that would allow those funds to be leveraged by the private sector so they could be recapitalized and use less federal dollars, which has a lot of merit. the public housing program is taking it on the chin as far as funding those. host: marty in minneapolis, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. you hear the political debate quite often about whether or not social safety net programs should be the burden of churches and other community organizations. i wonder if an organization has done any statistical analysis of what it would actually cost in terms of impact on our society if you actually put people off

some of these programs that exist, such as section 8. the other question, it is the waiting list still so long? it seems like you have a problem. there are a lot of empty, foreclosed properties. you have a lot of people that need houses. i wonder if any work has been re.e to connect the dots thei thank you. guest: you ask a couple of good questions and raise a couple of points. there was an article in "the washington post" that showed that a lot of folks that are about -- are voucher recipients are able to rent very nice single-family homes because they are in the process of being foreclosed on. it has opened a lot of supply of rental housing to about shoulders -- voucher-holders.

in some areas, voucher-holders who used to live in apartments are now living in single-family homes. as far as a study of how the value would be borne by churches, i'm not aware of it. i do not think it is possible for the slack to be taken up by somebody else, nonprofit in particular. there is an impact on communities if you do not have rental assistance. folks have to earn a two or three times the minimum wage to be able to afford a two-bedroom apartment. i do not know where the woodwork if they did not live in their community or nearby -- i do not know where people would live if they did not live in their community -- i do not know where

people would work if they did not live in their community or nearby. host: let's look at these numbers. denise muha, tell us about some of those programs. guest: the home program is a grant program created in 1992. states and localities get money to do various things related to housing. it is not that much money. i look at it as a sort of gap financing. if you're building a house and property with low-income tax credits, maybe with rental subsidies -- building housing property with low-income tax credit, maybe with rental subsidy, it is a good tool, but not well enough funded. host: let's go to nicole in preventing, florida -- breaking

10 -- bradenton, florida. caller: i am trying to figure out why they would go by the children boss -- children's ssi income for my rent. i don't think that's fair. guest: that is an interesting question. i can tell you there are exclusions from income. i am assuming their children get the income because their father is deceased or disabled. you raen't -- aren't paying rent on the full price. if you go to hud.com,t here -- hud.com, there are some worksheets that can help. talk to your housing provier.

-- provider. host: let's go to mark on our independent line. caller: is information from hud public information? like whether a particular address or person is receiving section 8 assistance? host: do you think it should be or it should not be? caller: considering is tax money, i don't see why it shouldn't be. host: are you concerned whether there is any bias? caller: it is a bigger might like to check in -- is something i might like to check in on. event how would you pr

discrimination? caller: i want to know if i could detect whether a person is receiving a in cases -- it in cases where i suspect fraud. guest: i have privacy concerns about that. in relation to an issue i was working on on capitol hill a few years ago, the topic came up. in the cleveland area, i know you can go on line and find addresses. if you suspect fraud, contact your local housing agency. host: we talked about some of the of the -- some of the other fiscal year 2012 amounts. what is htf and how does it work? guest: it is a relatively new program, authorized a few years

ago. it is a grant-type program. i think it will be difficult to implement. i will be surprised if the funding will come. we're not supposed -- not opposed to the program. the regs i have seen would make it difficult unless you have a lot of other subsidies to lay on top of it. host: it would increase the supply of rental housing for extremely-low and low-income families. guest: the intent is good. maybe they should look at joining forces with the home program, maybe combine them. caller: -- host: daniel on twitter -- another on twitter -- guest: there are efforts in the

industry to green the housing. hud has put out information on an fha program which would insure loans for a vote -- for folks doing green-energy reductions. a lot of the costs go to utilities. a lot of older buildings could be retrofitted. it is really a timely and -- really timely. host: let's go to rick. turn down your tv. go ahead. caller: i am a recipient of the section 8 program. i think it is a very beneficial program. the income and make it my full- time job that i work very hard at -- income i make at my

full-time job that i work very hard that is not enough to support my six-person household. host: have you found it to be user-friendly? caller: definitely. i heard someone make a comment about not being able to attract people's income. they have a program in pennsylvania that tracks how much money they make. obviously, if you have to pay more rent, you will receive a letter with that notice. i do not see how it is possible for anyone to jump the system -- gyp the system. forink it is a great thing people in my situation. guest: that is what congress needs to hear. your example is truly what we see most often.

most folks have working, employment income, just not high enough to support the rents in the area. or someone elderly or disabled two lives on a fixed income. i think it is a wonderful program. there are always things that go wrong. at the end of the day, it is a good thing for the government -- bang for the government buck. host: denise muha of the national leased housing association. we're talking about the rental assistance program. we're talking about a couple of breakdowns, how much they cost, what they do. what are the requirements for landlords to rent under section 8 and meet the program? guest: ran past the reasonable for the area. they cannot charge just -- rent has to be reasonable for the area. they cannot charge whatever they want. it has to be safe.

there are things that makes it easier for an enlarged to participate. our organization is more oferested fin the quality landlords and trying to increase the number of professional landlords. we can cut back on some of the red tape. housing quality is the biggest issue, along with rent. host: on twitter, why don't yo u limit the number of years a person can live in section 8 housing? for example, young, able-bodied people? guest: most people are working. their income is not high enough to support the rent. the issue of time limits comes up periodically, but the data does not reflect that they are really needed. most people are on rental assistance or less than five years.

something like 53%. about 80% are on it for less than eight years. that is not that long. people who are on it longer are usually olderly -- elderly or disabled. washington. go to linda? with us?itu one last time, linda? caller: hi. host: you are on the program. go ahead. caller: sorry. there is a $2,000 asset limit. it includes your car. my landlord works for a community agency. he will not fix my place. he wants me to move. he wants more money.

i need to find a new situation. i have only $539 to look for a place. i cannot find a one-bedroom in decent condition. guest: i am not sure what your question is, other than you need to find a new unit. the housing authority can help. the landlord is free to decide they want to rent to someone else, to change the buil diong -- building from a rental to a condo. it is private sector. the fact that you have about your makes them portable -- makes them voucher

portable. host: what about that figure of $2,000? guest: i am not sure about that. you can certainly have a car and a few other things. they do not want people who have assets they could liquidate getting assistance when there are others who really need it. host: good morning. caller: i have been up and down the ladder with salary. i have been a single mother working three jobs. sectio n8 housing -- section 8 housing does not work. you can have the proper paperwork. once you get on, that is where the corruption happens -- after they get approved. tell me how many illegals are getting section it. tell many ham -- me how many

people who could find work. boyfriends aren't reported. section 8 housing just makes more -- guest: i hear what you're saying. we certainly tried to prevent fraud. it happens in every aspect of every government program. there is always some fraud, but i do not think it is a lot of fraud. if you know something, you should certainly reported. folks who are in the country illegally are not allowed to receive rental assistance. it should not be happening. i would be surprised if it is. host: our caller said section 8 housing creates more to get those -- more ghettoes. we talked about the vouchers versus the projects.

can section 8 housing be in any neighborhood? guest: it can be anywhere. in many small towns, the only high-rise is a senior community. there have been various studies on the effects of vouchers on crime. they aren't able to make a relationship. sometimes, voucher-holders move to neighborhoods that are already crammed hidden because that is the landlords that are renting to them in that -- that are already crime-ridden because that is the landlords that are renting to them. there are a higher concentration on route 1 where landlords are willing to rent.

you can get a higher concentration. i'm not sure if one causes the other, but i would not say that it is necessarily correlated. host: let's here from jackie in missouri. caller: i have two comments. i am on section 8. i was on a buyout program and i ended up receiving section 8. it is a good program. it tells think provide for my children. i do not have a mother. she died when i was little. it tells me to go to work and pay my rent. i have a job that i work 6 months and sometimes i am furloughed for 6 months. is there a program where i could

start looking to buy a home? i have been wanting to look at what my resources are for purchasing a home. i did live in an area that was a very nice complex. the apartment managers ended up selling to another manager. sometimes you get landlords who just do not care. they can just move anybody in. it turned into a very high-crime area. that is why i ended up moving out to st. charles. i was living in st. louis county. the townhomes or the worst in missouri -- were the worst in missouri. they had a big crime. it is fraud and everything. i want to live in peace. i am grateful to god that i am

able to have this kind of service to help me provide for my children. my children are in college now. i am trying to do the right thing on section eight. i do thank you for fighting for us. i want to know if there is a home buying program that you know about. guest: thank you 3 much. it is good to hear of your experience. there is about your home ownership program -- a voucher homeownership program. it depends on where you are in the home -- and the home prices. in some communities, you can use your voucher towards making a mortgage payment. i would go and talk to the housing authority in your area and asked if they have a voucher homeownership program -- ask if they have a without sure, ownership program -- have a