the federal budget on education funding, and president obama's new jobs program. the percentage of americans without health care coverage is about 16%. later we'll talk about rachel garfield of the ayeser commission on medicare and the uninsured. national captioning institute] cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the idea is not to make the tax codes more complex.

host: and of course that was speaker boehner. reform is what we want to talk about on the "washington journal" in this first segment. do you think it is time? do you think it is possible? what do you think of reducing some of the loopholes in the current system?

>> here is the "wall street journal's" take. "mr. boehner reiterated his party's firm opposition as he laid out thursday his most detailed response yet to president obama's $447 billion job-creation plan, which mr. obama has proposed pale paying for with tax increases. mr. boehner also described a broad mission for the joint committee on deficit reduction. "tax increases destroy jobs," he said in a speach at the washington economic club. "and the joint committee is a jobs committee.

its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country." the speech marked something of a departure from the more conciliatory tone mr. boehner initially set on his response to mr. obama's jobs plan, which wa would extend payroll-tax cuts, increase highway-construction spending, and raise taxes on the wealthy to offset the program's cost. in his thursday speech mr. boehner said jobs greators in america are essentially on strike and he called on reducing washington regulations and reducing federal spunding. white house spokesman jay carney defended the president's jobs proposal after mr. boehner's speech. it includes the kinds of proposal that have been support in to a bipartisan way in the past, he he said, adding that independent economists estimate it would create as many as two

million jobs." that's part of the "wall street journal" article on mr. boehner's speech yesterday. if you would like to dial in, the numbers are on the screen. here is more from speaker boehner. >> let's be honest with ourselves. the president's proposals are a poor substitute for the pro-growth policies needed to remove barriers to jobs creation in america, the policies that are needed to put america back to work. >> and a little more from janet hook's article in "the wall street journal." " the white house is fighting any skrt cuts -- social security cuts. at least one g.o.p. member of the special committee, snorl jon kyl of arizona, has ruled out further cuts in defense spending. the 12-member committee faces a november 2 deadline to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in

deficit reduction measures." first call up in overhauling the tax system comes from fort hood, texas on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to comment on this. it seems like it is rich people trying to circumvent paying taxes. it allows them to avoid paying taxes. i am a united states marine. i defended this country, and i see a very, very strict thing happening where the burden is being transferred on to reports in the middle class and the corporations with millions of

dollars in reserves don't want to pay anything. they just want to put it back like they are the ones from the system we have. host: next one comes from a call in dallas. caller: good morning. i'm really confused where the republicans are going. i'm one of them in a sense that you have people like warren buffet and all saying we can afford to pay a little more in taxes. 6 republicans and democrats alike need to get on the phone and start calling these special interest groups and the super wealthyy and saying, let's have a telethon. let's raise some money, let's get the country out of the hole it's in, and see what they can do in that direction. they don't want to raise taxes on people of $250,000 or more. well, you know, i haven't heard

them say they don't want to raise the taxes on the middle class or the poor. they just talk about not wanting to raise taxes on the rich. i don't get it. they need to wake up and ask for the -- answer to the people or be prepared to lose their jobs. host: john, would you be willing to take a tax increase. caller: absolutely. if that's what it takes for this greatest country in the world to get out of its problem, absolutely. they need to ge get rid of the label of republican, democrat, independent. we are american. step up to the plate as an american, whoever you are, and let's do what it takes. it needs to be done and led by example. the people in washington, the politicians, need to lead the party down the road, lead the party down the road and say let's get some money in here.

host: philadelphia, mark. what do you think about overhauling the tax system? caller: i think it is never going to happen. let's face it. the fortune 500 companies, take a look at general electric et al are not paying a dime in federal income taxes. not only that but they are using the code to carry back and carry forward net operating losses and they are getting refunds. if the wealthiest corporations, the wealthiest people in this country are paying either nothing or effective rates that are lower than mine, my wife and i, we're, you know, lower middle income, warren buffet's effective tax rate is lower than my wife and i's. now, warren buffet is out here saying let the wealthy pay more taxes, he's the only one i hear

saying it. there is no way in the world that this is going to happen and it is nothing more than a smoke screen. >> this one from new era michigan on our republicans line. caller: basically the reason we have the tax system we have today is because of the supreme court has never accepted a nonburdensome tax. i was hoping to install a seven-year tax strike so one year everybody would not have to pay federal tax one year. that means everyone that works will get one-seventh of what they paid in fica, then the system could raise the tax as high as they want or low as they can by the politician people's vote. they would be able to afford something, and the people would be able to get a rebait from whatever they think they can expense.

and hopefully for a gold standard for the united states, hopefully get it down to 99 cents a gallon again. and we can have gas wars again. host: here's a little more from speaker boehner's speech yesterday. caller: tax increases i think are off the table. i don't think they are viable. it is a simple eindication. tax increases destroy jobs. the mission is it to reduce the deficit, threatening jobs creation in our country. we should not make this task harder by asking it to do things that will make the environment for jobs creation in america worse. the president will meet the standard. when he puts forth his recommendation for the joint committee next week. when it comes to producing savings to reach the $1.5 billion target, the joint committee has really only one option, spending cuts and

entitlement reform. the joint committee can't achieve real deficit reduction by informing entitlements and taking real action to preserve and strengthen social security, medicare, or medicaid. host: and from "the wall street journal" economists see a 1-3 chance the u.s. will slip into recession over the next 12 months and doubt any steps the federal reserve might take at its meeting next week could change that. those are the highest odds for a new downturn that the economists in the wall street journal survey have given since the start of the recovery and up four percentage points from last month's poll. economic strains have escalated amid margaret turmoil and concern about european stability. from texas, john on our republican line. what do you think about an overhaul of the tax system? caller: i want to thank c-span

first. i'm an 87-year-old retired man here in texas. i want to talk about boehner, and ross -- when ross perot was running for office boehner would go on all the shows like "cross-fire" and all of that, and he kept repeating this. "ross perot is crazy. ug you know, he's crazy." i wish they would dig up some of those tapes. he was going on all these programs talking about ross perot being crazy when he talked about all the jobs were going to leave the united states and going to mexico and there was a big sucking sound and all that, and boehner just went around, he was in congress at that time voting on all that stuff, send all the jubs jobs out of the

country. it was ok then. now everything is gone, and this guy is on tv talking about what we should do about finding jobs in this country. but i wish they would dig up those tapes of boehner going around talking about ross perot being crazy. host: this from our comment page. "speaker boehner, you need to stop speaking. every time you do it is about the rich to get richer and forget about the poor and middle class." "why does speaker boehner think this will create jobs now?" harry reed responded to the speech. this is when -- what he had to

say. >> i'm dis-- disappointed. i am confident that the super committee will -- host: next caller. caller: it seems like many in this process are about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer and the tax structure favoring the rich. this is no surprise because lobbyists are doing their jobs and making sure the politicians get re-elected. the incestuous relationship between politician and big

business is going to bring this country down. so long as people get elected from begging for people who have interests, nothing will come from that. that whole system will have to be revamped. there is one other tax we are all paying right now, and that is the price of gas. obviously it is not a real tax from the government. and be pumping more and more money into that car and expect that money will go into the economy and help it grow. it is all just flowing to the oil companies, and that is a very severe tax. host: from "the new york times" new book tells of discord. a new book claims president obama's response to the economic crisis was hampered by a white house economic staff plagued by internal rivalries, a domineering chief adviser, and a

treasury secretary." he quotes white house documents that say mr. obama's decisions were routinely relit depated by the chairman of the national economic council, lawrence summers. carried out sluggishly or not at all by a resistant treasury secretary, timothy geithner, according to the book. a copy of the book "confidence men: wall street, washington, and the education of a president" published by harper collins was obtained by "the new york times" before it officially goes on sale next tuesday. the white house declined to comment on mr. suskind's account

which he said was based on interviews with more than 200 people, including the president. house republicans ripped into democrats for failing to perform one of congress' most basic duties, providing money in a timely way in the operations of government. but republicans acknowledge thursday that they would miss the deadline they had promised to meet, they began to rush a stop-gap spending bill through the house because, they said, congress could not finish work on any of the 12 regular appropriations bills before the new fiscal year starts in two weeks on october 1. the stopgap measure maintains spending for the first 49 days of the fiscal year through november 18, with a 1.5% across-the-board cut from current levels averting at least for new the threat of a government shutdown

congressional leaders hope additional time allows them to finish many of the overdue spending measures. up next, garfield heights, ohio. greg on our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. how, sir? host: very well. caller: we have to stop trying to fix this problem around the edges. we need to get rid of the income tax. we have fewer and fewer jobs trying to supply more money to washington, which isn't going to work. we need to institute the fair tax, which is a progressive tax, because of the preba tefment feature that it has on it, which pays the poor up to the poverty level, and then you start paying the sales tax directly to the government. i would get rid of this. the income tarks taxes are archaic. it is from the early 20th

century. it doesn't fit today. i wish our politicians would seriously look at something like that. host: thank you for calling in this morning. one of our regular tweeters tweets in taxes must come down. we are in a world economy that is flattening. taxing more will just demoralize the middle class more. john boehner from yesterday. a little more. >> we'll pass the reigns out. house committees have identified dozens of job-crushing regulation that is are keeping our economy from producing jobs. we have repealed the 3% withholding rule. we'll stop federal regulations that inhibit jobs in areas as varied as cement to farm dust.

>> here's an e-mail from pat in new jersey. tax overhaul is needed, but it will never happen. been there, done that. even if the tax code is simplified, the changes won't last." arlene, a democrat in trenton, michigan. caller: good morning. i am one of the people that is suffering because of the wealthy getting wealthier, the poorer getting poorer. i fell off a truck and i injured my back to the point i cannot work anymore. i live on less than $700 a month because of the fact that i don't have a work history. i stayed home and raised my children which is what we were taught to do in the early 1960's. consequently, my social security

benefit is next to nothing. now they want -- they have taken five weeks of food off my table because of all this revamping that's hitting the middle and low class. i live way below the sub poverty level. my entire income last year, when i filed my tax was $9,000 for the year. that is abominable, we are kicking our seniors and our middle class and our working poor right down the sewage system which is also falling apart. mr. boehner, and i use that term loosely, mr. boehner and mr. mcconnell and the rest of those republican leaders that get their faces in every camera they can get them on, and then turn around and say no, the rich can't be taxed anymore. well, when i'm working as a

truck driver running over the road for six years and my tax rate is paid at 23% because i'm a single woman and the idiots that have the money are paying no nothing, they aren't providing jobs, they are holding on to their cash, the lobbyists. i think lobbying has to be disbanded in this country. it is completely unfair. the supreme court has taken a stap at the middle class by creating businesses and calling them entities and they are people. i don't noy know any brick and mortar that can think or create a job or that is going to put a roof over my head when these tax cuts hit and i'm caught in the middle and expected to live not on only less than $700 a month but less than $600 a month by

the time they get that tax in. host: d.w. from seattle e-mails in "these calls for hyper simplification of the tax system are disingenuous in my opinion. given the power of the corporate lobbyists, if the super rich were really going to do this, it would have happened a long time ago." john on our republican line. caller: good morning.

maybe the politicians should pay a tax on all the contributions they get. host: thank you. lake elsinore, california. democrats line. caller: i also put in $1,000 a year for public debt. i don't have to pay taxes, but i feel we all should have to pay something to keep the country going. everything is more and more expensive. everybody should try to donate something.

host: thank you for calling in. thank you for getting up early in lake elsinore, california, to watch owe the washington journal." a little more from speaker boehner. >> i'm not opposed to responsible spending. i want to do it in a way that truly supports long-term economic growth. let's link the next highway bill to an expansion of american-made energy production. removing some of the unnecessary government barriers that prevent our country from utilizing the vast energy resources that we have and also creating millions of american jobs along the way. host: from the "marketplace journal." "loan was solyndra's undoing."

the $535 million government loan guarantee so prized by the solar-panel maker may have ultimately contributed to the company's undoing, say investors with knowledge of the company's operations. the new factory built with department of energy funds foited fixed costs on a company already struggling to get through an industry shake-out. one said the worst thing that happened to solyndra was the loan." sam, what do you think about overhauling the tax system? caller: i believe that the tax system needs to be overhauled from top to bottom by a fair panel, one that lepts the american people -- one that

let's -- helps the american people and not special interest. do they realize if they would iven crease the level of interest on u.s. savings bonds, the american people would flock to try to help the american government organize itself in a way that would be beneficial for our government, merk americans supporting our own government for our own future. host: the obama administration says premiums from medicare advantage will shrink and enrollment will rise next year framing the news that evidence of the new health care law won't put seniors out. they expect average premium costs to decline by 4% and enrollment to rise by 10% in 2012 for the program which

allows seniors to obtain additional insurance through a private company. many people have raised fears that under the affordable care act beneficiaries will see their medicare options shrink and premiums rise, and pead secretary of health and human services kathleen sebelius. while the short-term growth is good news for the administration, it doesn't answer questions about what will happen to the program long term. last year the chief actuary for the center for medicare and medicaid services projected that enrollment in medicare advantage would drop one-third by 2016 and 50% by 2018." michael, in philadelphia, what do you think about overhauling the tax system? caller: they have to stop going around with the politicians and the big government. that's what they have to do. they are going around with all these companies, they have giving them money, and we lose

millions and millions of dollars. they are really not helping us out. host: grand bay texas. how are you doing? what's going on? what do you think about overhauling the tax system? caller: we need to. host: how would we do it? jane: i don't know. i'm than smart. host: let me ask you two questions. are your taxes too high and or would you be willing to pay more taxes to get rid of the deficit? caller: well, we don't have to pay the minimum tax anymore.

host: how is it going? caller: gog doing ok. finally out of that heat wave. host: have you had any rain yet? caller: no, but we're supposed to get it every day this week, which we need for our fires. host: good. do you pay too much in tax? caller: no, we're just on social security. host: would you be willing to pay more tax? caller: no, i wouldn't. host: ok. good to hear fru both. good luck with the rain down there in texas. thanks for calling in. tom is a republican in fort lawed daily -- in fort lauderdale. caller: i am interested in a

fair tax. i think it is going to be interesting when the democratic party is affected by it. for instance, there was a bill years ago that would attach the money lawyers get from lawsuits, and the democrats were against taxing their fat cat client lawyers in that case. and what about the fat cat movie industry? it will be interesting to see about the loopholes that are given to to that industry. you know, there is more than one kind of fat cat out there, and it will be interesting to see what happens in this tax overhaul, who the democrats try to protect. thank you. host: john, democrat, north

carolina. you are on the air. caller: i would like to say that the so-called jobs creators aren't creating any jobs. i don't understand what they are doing. i have another question. host: go ahead. we're listening. caller: i'm on disability because i'm a disabled veteran, 100%. i think it is ridiculous to take taxes out of taxes. i have no idea why they would want to fake taxes out of taxes. it is like taking unemployment checks so people can't spend money and expecting the economy to improve. i think they are more interested in crippling obama than they are fixing the economy and i think we are all victims to it. host: thanks for calling in. from our facebook page.

george shuman makes this comment. "warren buffet made a public relations comment that he being the only rich person loved by the lower class." and this tweet, i "i think the tax code must be overhauled. get rid of all corporate welfare." "voters split on whether rick perry's position could cost him in the general election." the survey taken after the monday night debate illustrates the complicated debate politics on the issue that has prompted a sharp divide between perry and former massachusetts governor mitt romney. the contenders at the top of national polls.

one in five republicans say that position makes them more likely to support him. one in five say it makes them less likely." next call from randy in jackonville, florida. what do you think of overhauling the tax system? caller: i think it should be overhauled. but if there was a fair tax, there would be no corporate tax, no income tax at all because it is taken back into consumption level and the price of products would not go up because all these companies, they pay to all the time different subsidiaries of these sales to make the product wouldn't have to pay it

anymore, and it would bring in five times the revenue that the government brings in now or has ever brought in. thank you so much for hearing me out, sir. host: from c-span.org. "washington faces multiple challenges: stagnant job growth, a rising deficit, aging infrastructure, and a widening wealth gap. ed rendell will debate how to address these issues with grover norquist and it will be live this morning. calvin on our democrats' line.

what would you do to overhaul the tax system? caller: you cutting the post office down, but why not look into the internet? all your money is going into the internet. if all of us e-mailed -- don't you know the postal service don't have no work? host: speaker boehner from yesterday. >> a plan that would create thousands of new full-time jobs for american workers only to be assumed by a federal agency that wants to shut this down. let me make sure i have this right. american companies are free to create jobs in china, but they are not free to create jobs in

south carolina? host: freddie, you are a republican in south carolina. caller: before we start talking about taxes we have to start with the problem, and that is limiting our federal government. our government to should conform to our constitution and do its fiducial duties and limit itself to that. cut the spending. cut how much the federal government spends. then stauk start talking about tax reform. the main problem is the government is too big, it has too much power. it is taking away our liberty and prosperity. it is that simple. host: do you take advantage of some of the credits or loopholes or curves in the tax system such as the mortgage deduction or charitable tricks, et cetera?

caller: no, i don't make that much money to take advantage of the tax code whatsoever. but this is what you earn, this is what you pay. personally, i'm for a consumption tax. but all these deductions are the social planning of what politicians want us to do. they should stay out of our business, collect the money from what people earn, and all these special interest deductions should be taken away. it is people trying to manipulate our lives. host: thank you for calling in this morning. on c-span.org, theresa mays will talk about her counterterrorism efforts as she speaks to the council on foreign relations today in washington. that will be live as well on c-span.org and on c-span tv at 12:30 eastern time today. and tonight second in our series "the contenders."

tonight it is a look at james g. blaine at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. mr. blaine was defeated by grover cleveland for the presidency. this will be live from the governor's mansion in agusta, maine, which is at james g. blaine's house. this is the second week of "the contenders" looks at james blaine. could have been president. ross perot, hubert humphrey, some of the other folks we will be covering in this series on friday night. phil, you are on the air. caller: good morning, c-span. only two central points. one is tax corporations and to get rid of some regulations, neither of which is going to help the real economy or unemployment. but that's understandable because those people are no longer involved in the real

economy. they are involved in the financial economy. the real economy is the middle class and the poor. so real liftcally, what can we expect in president obama's plan will be gridlocked in congress. they will be gridlocked in november with the super committee. so what can be done? i think at that point it would be time for the president to take independent action legally and sign an executive order, expand the department of transportation and the department of labor and empower them to hire people all over the country to renovate material properties in order to stay within the law. they could also coordinate with the federal reserve to set up that infrastructure bank, and once the domino starts to fall, and you hire two million people

to start renovating, small businesses will jump into the act because they have to produce all the tools, et cetera, and services to keep those things going, and they will see the demand. and the dominos will fall one after the other. boehner's plan is not a plan at all. host: next call comes from chicago. henry on our independent line. hi, henry. caller: yes, for 30 years, i have been telling people they should not have a deduction for anyone for any reason. the poorest people pay only .1 of 1% and it goes up where every rich person pays 92% in income taxes. that's the only way you are going to have anyway or the poor people even having a halfway decent life and these rich, corrupt greedy hypocrites would be brought under control.

>> by the way, today at noon, there will be a live webcast on book-tv.org. richard brookhiser will be talking about his new book "james madison." >> from "politico" this morning, president obama will fly back to the homeland next thursday to make the case that his jobs bill can fix the nage's crumbling infrastructure, and the bridge he's chosen to illustrate the problem happens to be in house speaker john boehner's hometown. the out-dated brent spence bridge connects kentucky with cincinnati where boehner grew up and went to school. well, that's just a coincidence,

according to the administration. jay carney made the announcement at his briefing thursday afternoon. "it's a bridge in great need of repair" carney said, smiling slightly. he added that the bridge is "one we can get to and highlight from the white house on a day trip." cheryl, what do you think about overhauling halling the tax system? caller: i think something definitely needs to be done. but i any transparancy would be nice to have from -- in our government. our chambers of congress, i believe they are doing under the tape table thing that should not be done. i believe there are a lot of rich people that do under the table things that, you know, is

not legal. they are not being anything done about it. i think, you know, they should pay taxes on it. and corporations are getting millions and millions of dollars from erika de souza, -- millions of dollars from ceo's and i don't think they are paying taxes on it. host: soak the rich? no, soak the needy. i am one of fose those people president obama continually tries to tax more aggressively, and i'm willing to pay more if it is part of a sensible tax policy. but mr. obama wants to pay for much of his new jobs program by restricting the duductability of

charitable contributions. in my opinion his willingness to punish churches, synagogues, schools and other charitable organizations is badly considered. the president is under pressure to find ways to finance the $447 billion jobs plan he announced last week. of that amount he proposes to raise $405 billion over 10 years by limiting the slal value of itemized deduction. the way this will work is that individuals making their gift to a college, for example, will only be able to reduce their taxes by 28% of the gift, even if they are in the 33% or 35% tax bracket. effective as follows. under the current law if an individual donates $1,000 is in the highest 35% bracket, his taxes would be bruced by $350. under the president's proposal his tax savings will be capped at $280.

the president will thus continue hint giving by make tg less attractive to give and this will impose paying on the res recipients -- by making it less attractive to give and this will impose paying on the recipients." our next caller from tennessee. caller: i want to know why every time president obama comes up with a plan all the republicans do, boehner and mcconnell, all they want to do is shoot holes in it. in my opinion, the lack of respect that those three have for the president of the united states, he can tell they have never served in the military, and i think those three clowns should be in jail. host: you say you think it should be

caller: all the republicans want to do is break the -- host: a new book "the rogue" has just gotten news. "the other kkardashian."

in case that's of interest to you, that's at the "politico" web site. a move against boeing company to open up a new plant in south carolina. the bill is expected to die in the democratically controlled senate. that's "the washington times." here is the "new york post" this morning. "dem's primary message, oh, we're so mad. the tough love was even more brutal from james carville, a democratic and long-time clinton oilists." this maybe news to you but it is not going well.

and from the washington post, "foreclosures spiked in august. banks increased activity. paperwork controversy slowed progress. the nation's banks have rammed up foreclosures a year after revelations of fraudulent findings and other questionable documentation practices slowed the number of foreclosures to a trickle across the country. foreclosure filings were up 7% in august over the previous month. " that is in "the washington post" this morning.

>> a soviet planner could not be assured of the outcome of an assault in the first right on us. >> the late senator malcolm wallop served in the senate in 1985 and was a proposer of anti-communist policy. watch his videos online at the c-span video library. >> the best-selling author of "a beautiful mind" sylvia nasar is interviewed on c-span2's book

tv. we will also continue our series on our war series, and michael moore recounts his life from the fifth grade. taking your phone calls october 2nd. get the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> in an election marred by moral scandal james g. blaine lost in 1884. but he changed political history. he's one of the 14 men featured in c-sman span's weekly series "the contenders" live from the blaine house in augusta, maine. learn more about this upsumming

series at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> go to c-span "org/campaign2012. easy to use with twitter updates from the campaigns and the latest polling gatia. all at c-span.org/campaign 2012. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us, a senior political columnist with "the daily beast" and a co-founder of "no labels." mr. adwan, let's start with the jobs proposal. the president is going on around the country saying pass this bill now, pass this bill now, speaker boehner's speech

yesterday at the economic club of washington, and says reform the tax system now, no tax hikes at this point. what's your assessment of this situation? >> well, we have two competing situations here. this was a policy speech, and everything in it was basically a bipartisan proposal, supported by democrats and republicans. that's precisely what independent voters and swing voters want to hear. they are easily frustrated by the hyper-spartsanship in washington so they feel the american economy can get back to work again. and there are these infrastructure banks. increasing the corporate tax rate, creating incentives to higher-trading g.i.'s. what's interesting is, i think republicans have a real question

to con front front, and their support among voters is one of the things that stayed. they will make proposed tax cuts. now john boehner has put forward a plan, and i think there is a great momentum in washington toward tax morm -- reform. the real question is, is closing tax loopholes going to be considered a tax hie hike by this congress? traditionally it has not been. that's really one of the key issues that needs to be worked out in negotiation. especially if the super committee is going to have any effect. the only way we are going to get some broad plan is if we have some form of tax reform and entitlement reform.

those are the broad broad fault lines. host: what do you do -- knowing what you do about politics and past commissions, how do you rate the potential success of the debt commission? guest: we have had successful bipartisan commissions in the past, the ability to deal with reform. we have made reforms and helped keep the system secure and solvent. the grace commission, the hoover commission. the the simpson commission and the gang of six both put together commissions and they had broad-base support even though they were shut down at the time. the problem with the super committee is that the members were appointed to it by the head of the senate. you had not one single member of the gang of six, that bipartisan group that worked long and hard to come up with a debt reduction

plan. the only members of the bole-simpson commission that were put forward on the committee were henserling and barkus both of whom voted against bole-simpson. i think there are folks on the deal willing to make a deal. but right when you saw the people who are being appointed, the fact mitch mcconnell appointed pat thome and someone like co-burn an impeckable fiscal conservative but someone who worked on the gang of six, that sent a bad sign. i think while you want to hope for the best, you should prepare for the worst. we need them to succeed. president obama and boehner have encouraged them to raise their sights to open the door from tax reform.

on one level it is pathetic that we need to relegate the job of congress to a super committee. there is common ground to be built on. but it takes political courage to reach across the aisle in this political environment. that's the responsibility in the super committee. not just the super committee. also john boehner and president obama to try to lead the sides of the aisle so get the economy moving again and get america on sounder long-term fiscal footing. host: john adwar is our guest. if you are watching c-span right now, you can see the numbers on the screen. most americans -- the majority of americans identify themselves as independentents. we want to hear from you.

john adwan is our guest. a recent gallop poll came out and we'll show you the end result, if we could. the light green line, 52% of americans say that a third-party is needed. the deep green line say the two-party system works. why do 52% of americans think a third party is needed? what is the influence of independentents at this point? guest: i think we are seeing a market failure in the two-party system. when the two-party system operates well, it has been a stable system. it is not working well when 42% of the american people are rejecting the two parties by declaring independentents.

i'm an independent. it is largely represented by younger voters. the number of independent voters has increased dramatically at the time the two have become polarized. independentents track more closely to the balance. it is not a split the difference. they question democrats on social issues. they tend to be the least religious of all. i think the reason they haven't reached out is because they are belholden to their special interests. so there is a market failure, and the two parties have been put on notice. independent voters are disappointed with the two-party system because of the dysfunction. they hate the

hyper-partisanship. they see people putting special interests ahead of national interests. i think the two parties have been put on notice. the history of third parties in america is a fraught one. i think there have been two major occasions when you have seen the third party emerge. lincoln leading them to their first presidency. at the end of the depay, i think this disconnect needs to be addressed. independentents do hold the balance of power. they are the fastest-growing sector of the electorate. this is not a subtle shift. it is a profound shift, and it is something everyone should pay attention to. there are so many professional part sans who want to ignore the fact that a majority of americans are rejecting the two parties. that can only go on for so long. i think it is a matter of party leadership and healing the divide.

it makes it difficult to appeal to those3a.

massachusetts is one of the 10 cents states in the nation were -- were one of the 10 states in the nation where liberals but of

#the others. if you look at t partyers, the fiscal conservative movement is over the debt. this had been discredited the past as the paranoid aspect of american politics. they are essentially a conservative populace, unlike those who are sick of the partisanship in washington, many in the tea party would like the republican party to be further to the right. there are bridges that they share with others over the deficit and the debt, wanting to return to fiscal responsibility. that is the opportunity. but as we have seen with michelle bachmann and others in

the tea party movement, granted, it is a liter less movement, but there is rhetoric that helped to connected to independent voters. but it is belied by the fact that many of its leaders are social conservatives. you cannot have 40% of the american public be a model of. and you do have libertarians and others to work in the independent party. but in general, it is important to understand the tea party as a conservative populist movement. that is different from the impulse that is beyond the rise of the end of and the voters in last 20 years. host: what are the label -- what is no labels? guest: it is republicans, democrats and independents like myself -- i'm an independent -- who got together because we believed one core idea, that

hyper partisanship is hurting our country. mark mckinnon, who worked on the bush campaign, a republican. someone in the clinton administration, bill colston. david walker, also an independent. all of these people rallied to the idea because of the power of the idea, a recognition that the hyper partisanship is polarizing our country and bring it to paralysis. the debt ceiling debate we had, the incredibly dysfunctional debt ceiling debate that brought our country to the brink of default and ended up for me a downgrade. it created a fiscal crisis and a political crisis. there is a problem with our politics right now of hyper partisanship. what labels are doing is not to focus on campaign, -- what no

labels is doing is to focus not on campaigns, but on governing. due regard to those in the house and senate who want to reach across the aisle probiotic -- who want to reach out in the house and senate to those who want to reach across the aisle. the other side does not want to help you because you have the wrong letter of your last name. what new technology has allowed us to do, social media, has allowed us to aggregate the desegregated. -- of the diss aggregated. there are a number of groups popping up right now around the same impulse. and i know label has a specific mission, which is to try to -- and no label has a specific mission, which is to try to reach an effective governance.

there's a group called americans elect, a very different project then no labels, but it is trying to get on the ballot in 50 states and have an online primary in june of next year to have a bipartisan ticket. and howard schultze, the ceo of starbucks, started a group called a poured spiral. -- but word spiral. we have a town hall meeting with him. he was arguing that the partisanship has got to stop, that is hurting people. a lot of people have come to the same conclusion at the same time, the hyper partisanship is a problem that kind of a self- inflicted wound is one that chief competitors look at or around the world and they see america unable to govern. the need to have show that we can govern effectively by reasoning together.

thomas jefferson said every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. we need to remember that in our current policy debates. if we can do that, we can move our country forward. host: first call up for john avlon of the daily beast comes from our independent caller in in -- in henderson, nevada. good morning, ralph. caller: good morning. you know, the dilemma that the nation is currently in is basically because they do not know what is going on with the congress. in order to do something about the tax code, it is going to take anywhere from 36-60 months to take a change. we have people out there that are homeless, going hungry, that need money, have to pay their bills. but still, we are talking about icing on the cake and not what the ingredients are. that is the biggest problem. as far as the tax code, the

partisans are going to be there. do you think all of the big companies are going to allow the tax code to change without putting up a fight? all that the, with supreme court has passed making the corporations and individual, where the heck do we go from here? guest: what is your name, sir? host: rolfe. guest: ralph? host: ralph. guest: i think he had some good points. the first, focusing on the icing on the cake is a good job. we get caught in the media and are not doing such a good job of covering media. the campaign is a preamble to the main event, which is governing. your right, we do focus on the rising too much and not the content. he is also right about the increased influence of lobbyists

in washington. the increase of lobbying dollars of lobbying in washington over the past 10 years shows where we have the problems we have. one of the reasons why obama put forward a proposal that republicans have put forward in the past. john chamberss have said, look, we have to do this. we do not want to invest overseas, but it makes sense for shareholders. lower the tax code. kreag incentives -- create incentives for folks to hire workers predictably companies like -- particularly companies like gm. earmarks -- loopholes are just earmarks embedded into the tax code that have been put there by lobbyists.

in the last round, some self- appointed tea party members have said if you close loopholes it is a tax hike. you can actually close loopholes and raise revenue. how was that not a win/win if you deal with the deficit? some have hijacked the movement and are trying to call that a tax hike. guess who is buying that at the end of the day? lobbyists who want to keep their special-interest intact. we want to take your marks out of the tax code and legislation? let's take your marks are everything. -- earmarks out of everything. host: here is a tweet.

and another. dearing is an independent in arlington, virginia. your honor, darren, with john avalon. -- you are on, tarin, with john avlon. caller: i would agree with him what he said about corporations, but i disagree with what he said about the third party, to party, that they are too far right extreme. i came from england to america for the reasons a lot of people come to america, and that is opportunity. i think the two-party stands for a lot of centrist in a way because people do want to see a change, whether it is republican or democratic. it just needs to be a difference of opinion.

do you know what i'm saying? guest: let me ask the caller a question if he still on the line. no question, trying to improve the economy and deal with the deficit if you believe it is generational theft. that is something that bridges the party rhetoric and independent and centrist. but what about tea party leaders but are not remotely centrist, like michelle bachmann? caller: she's not the leader of the two-party, is she? guest: she has a coalition in the congress caller: yes, but if a new party formed, then there would elect a person. who was to say who would be the leader? guest: i think we do know who are part releasing as the leaders of the tea party. but that is the dichotomy between the libertarian rhetoric and a lot of the centrist impulses of good people who joined in good faith.

as originally it was all about bush was wrong, obama is wrong. it was dealing with this sense of generational theft. what we have seen subsequently as a lot of the libertarian rhetoric has faded or proved to be about an inch deep. it is the same old folks coming up front, the conservative caucus -- the conservative populist. i want to see my friends, my centrist friends as daniel to them. -- standing up to them. what we know about michelle bachmann and sarah palin and others is that there are approval among centrists has always been very low. -- their approval among centrists has always been very low. host: chris tweed into you to --

chris tweed into you -- guest: the problem is not partisanship. the problem is hyper partisanship. it is not just competing to win an election. that is competition. that is healthy and every endeavor. it is demonizing people who disagree with you. and once the election is over, being on willing to work together and reason together and give the other side the benefit of the doubt. neither party has a monopoly on good ideas or good people. neither party has a monopoly on virtue was advice. and the current environment in washington tends to believe those things. that there side is the angels and the other side is the devil. the unwillingness to work together and reason together, this has happened before in history of democratic republics.

sure, it was forced before the civil war -- it was worse before the civil war, and during it. but let's learn from our history. the last century has produced the marshall plan, a highway act of the achievements of the reagan era when tip o'neill was running congress. we turned it deficit into a surplus. these were great achievements. there were plenty of philosophical differences, but at the end of the day they were able to sit together and reason together. let's define the common ground exists, however small, and then build on it. the problem with the current hyper partisan approach in washington is that they are unwilling to do those things. even if they want to do it privately, they are afraid they will be punished by the hyper partisans if they do. that is not the lifeblood of democracy. host: south carolina, andrew,

good morning. caller: good morning. i've been listening to the conversation and i want to tell you, if i can have a minute or so -- as a matter of fact, the gentleman there has got my vote. he is doing good work. this,at i'm thinking is though. the real partisanship -- i did not really get into m politics and always in my forties in the clinton administration. i do mean conservative now, although i'm independent. -- i do lean conservative now, although an independent. in the last 20 years -- up until clinton got elected in the early 1990's, go back to the

presidents of the last half century, all the way to the civil war. it all got started, believe it or not, during that era. and then comes george bush and so sick of hearing how bush -- and he may have made a lot of mistakes. but the housing bubble came after clinton. in the 2004 election he was demonized from then until the end of his presidency, mainly until 2005. i agree that bush was mainly trying to win awards. i do not think he was stealing money or nothing like that. and housing bubble was going by him. host: do you know what? we're going to leave your comment there. anything you want to respond guest: 2? a couple of things.

-- that you want to respond to guest:? a couple of things. politics is history in the present tense. people do not believe that when they come into office. the second thing is that he talked about the effort to delegitimize president bush. that is one of the efforts of hyper partisanship that we have seen. the attitude against the balad -- against obama has been preceded by the attitude toward bush before that. that cycle percolates on the extremes. party is out of power tend to be disproportionately dominancdd by their discontented voices.

at the end of the day, we do have an obligation to disagree where there are a principled is agreements with our president, but it and set eating away at the democracy in the way we do it. all of the berber nonsense was part of that -- birther nonsense was part of the, but he was on our a live -- and the legitimate president from day one. and it tends to this respect the office of president. years ago, with what john dwane said in 1960 when he said, you know what, i did not vote for him, but i hope you succeed.

that is a bit of wisdom that we would do well to rediscover right now. it does get to the heart of why we are so polarized. of the parties are deeply polarized. the american people are now. host: here is a tweet. guest: let nerd out on some history. this is fun. the we are cutting out on the anniversary of 1912. teddy roosevelt, woodrow wilson, and taft, was the incumbent. teddy roosevelt was representing the progressive wing of the republican party at the time. yes, there was such a thing in the lincoln tradition. taft was the a establishment. roosevelt won many primaries and

the bull moose party, the progressive party emerged. at the same time, woodrow wilson was able to recapture the white house for democrats for the for seven decades by building on the deep south bay's and appealing to progressives as well. what you have seen in america in the past century is worth appreciating. in 1945, independents were 50% of the electorate. now is basically 40% -- 15% of the electorate. now it is basically 40%. you see a major spike after watergate. understandable, disaffection. another spike around 1990, 1992 as ross perot's independent campaign for presidency ultimately getting 19% of the vote in 1992. again, a classic independent profile.

he is a deficit? against washington d.c. -- a deficit hawk against washington d.c. dysfunction, but pro- choice. there is a clear trend. it is rising. it is unmistakable at it as mainstream drivers beneath it. 100 years ago they did not analyze our politics in terms of left bursa's right. they talked about it in a better way. the talk to are radicals, reactionaries, and reformers. radicals wanted a radical change, something that challenge whether america was a great country. they seem unpatriotic at the time. reactionary's wanted no change. reformers wanted moderate change. teddy roosevelt wanted evolution. he was one of those folks.

socialism, communism, and ultimately fascism were gaining credibility in europe at the time. america always steered a better course. we were much less ideological at the time. but we do see this rise of independent spirit is not subtle and overall, it is a reaction of the polarization of the two parties. host: the next call comes from washington d.c., nancy, you are on the air. caller: i want to respond to the issue of whether or not there should be a third party. i am a registered independent. i am an african-american female, 52 years old. i have had the tendency in the past to vote democratic ticket, however, i support, several values of the republican party as well. i agree that there's a lot of

hyper partisanship right now, so much so that it is affecting the american people to a fault. i think that is the reason why we are in this condition with so many people being unemployed. i also believe that some of the people -- some of the congressmen who have had the tendency in the past to vote on specific to their party, you are right, they are demonized. but i think the country's missing a lot of fundamental points that we need to get back to looking at policy and looking at issues and just determining for yourself whether or not it is something good for the country, looking at who is affected, who was benefiting, and make a determination from instead of trying to force america to do something from a partisan perspective host:.

thank you. mr. aijalon? -- mr. avalon guest:? you are right, they're doing things from a partisan perspective and it seems really out of touch. you have two solutions to the hyper partisanship in politics right now. redistricting and open primaries. -- redistricting reform and open primaries. what the caller is getting to is important. first, she said a representative of many independents, angry that we are taking precedence over the pledge of allegiance, something that unites us. and framing the jobs bill the way he did, they are angry at president obama. suddenly we are confronted with a real choice. you may not like the way the

president said he is going to pay for it, fine. but can we find elements to work together on in congress? and republicans are suddenly going to oppose tax cuts simply because they come from president obama? that becomes a practical problem for the country, for the economy, and for them politically. folks will see that. that is the way to lose independent voters right now. i think there is a sense of massive breakdown because the parties are not reasoning together. they are purging everything in terms of these strong partisan litmus tests -- approaching everything in terms of these strong partisan litmus test. they need to figure of were the common ground exists and build on it. host: here is a tweet.

guest: 0 h, batie host: buchanan. no, -- bay buchanan. host: no, very beginning. guest: ok, one of the things that frustrates the caller is that there's a sense that this is a positionwithout principle or passion. not true. i would argue that many people in the center because of the reaction of the polarization are more consistent. if you say you believe in individual freedom, why should not stop economic freedom? conservatives have a social agenda that is at the medical when it comes to things like gay-rights.

i hate -- that is antithetical when it comes to things like gay-rights. i hate the labels. i think it is more philosophical consistent than the two parties because they are still dominated by their special interests. more and more people are coming to talk about it. it is the folks that are gravitating to no labels and other movements is the recognition that there is a hijacking of politics. there is a philosophical consistency and policy coalition that is not represented by the two parties because they are so polarized and dominated by their special interests. it is hard to get people to get their heads around it because there are -- they have bought into this deep divide between red states and blue states. it is just not true. take a look at how people vote and the country is purple.

it reflects what you know in your everyday life. there is not a political litmus test in the town you move to or the neighborhood you move to or your friends. washington is not the most important thing about you. folks work with people of different bakradze and political believes every day. it is not too much to -- different political backgrounds and beliefs every day. it is not too much to ask washington to do the same. right now, political voting patterns are not the same. that is not standing for something strong. that is being pushed to the extreme and polarized in a way that does not represent the majority of the american people. that is a problem. i challenge the person to say, look, i understand it is a principled protest against the hyper partisanship that is hurting our -country.

is it really a stand of conscience to walk in a vote lockstep with congress? that looks like conformity to me. that is cowardice. do you know what takes courage? thinking for yourself, being able to reach across the aisle on areas where you have common ground even if you may disagree with a person on other areas. we have seen this without some people, some some goals, -- bowles-simpson and others. we want to those more pragmatic in their politics, not hyper partisan. host: next call, good morning caller:. i would like to go back to the characterization of the tea

party. the two-party as a set of ideals, not individuals. -- the tea party is a set of ideals, not individuals. he talked about things that are objectionable to him. he stated it kirk -- correctly when he talked about libertarian ideals. also, the tea party is about going back to living within the restrictions of the constitution, enumerated powers, etc. any of their views that an individual holds on other topics outside the scope of the two-party -- tea party, also, he blamed them for putting us almost to default and the blame them for the downgrade. in fact, it is just the opposite. the tea party was fighting against the policies that led to the downgrade. $4 trillion to prevent the downgrade.

there were two proposals on the table that could achieve that, the current cap the balance and the original plan. the two-party -- a tea party was supporting both of those. the tea party was fighting to prevent being downgraded. guest: i appreciate very much that is the tea party is positioned, but let's talk about what we would have cut $4 trillion from the budget. it was the grand bargain that was being negotiated by president obama and john boehner. that was deeply opposed by members of the tea party in congress. there were no concessions at all to democratic positions. we have a centrist proposals that would have reduced it dramatically. there were bipartisan proposals that had backing. here's the problem with our politics right now. it is illustrative by one broad

dynamic and then we will talk about the tea party. we are living in a time where the folks on the far right thing that barack obama is a socialist, maybe even a communist. folks on the far left think he is a corporate sellout and a wall street lackey. you cannot be both. that is the schizophrenic debate we're having right now where people walk into politics and project their partisanship. we have stopped having a conversation. everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. people are coming to these debates armed with their own facts. the bipartisan plan that was put forward the could have reduced the deficit by $4 trillion and help avoid the downgrade was put forward by obama and boehner. there were folks on the far left and the far right that we're not going to vote for it. and many of the self-appointed

leaders of the two-party -- he is right in that it is a liter less movement. leaderless lite movement. it is one of the more exciting things in politics. but michelle bachmann and others were not opposing the downgrade at all. it was consistent across the board with many of the self- appointed leaders. i understand the impulse, but that was not the reality. as i said before, i think this movement began as a principled conservative protests against growing deficits and debt. people believed it was generational theft. they're wanted to return to principles -- they have wanted a return to principles, fine. the problem is, the democrats see the tea party movement and

the only cd obama derangement syndrome. they only see conspiracy. and republicans only see a principled conservative protests. that is not an honest view of what is going on. i think they need to start standing up to some of the folks who attempt to speak on their behalf, who peddle this conspiratorial nonsense. the tea party wants to do with the deficit and the debt. here is where they need to work. they need to be consistent with washington at lowering tax loopholes is not a tax hike. stand up for the folks who go against the grain. william buckley stood up for the john birch society in the 1960's. that was an important movement.

we're not seeing enough in our politics today of people standing of to the extremes in their own party spirit democrats and report -- their own party extremes. democrats and republicans. host: we want to read knowledge these last two tweets just to acknowledge them. -- to acknowledge these last two tweets just read knowledge them. you mentioned your previous books "wingnuts," but you have a new book. what is it? guest: is called "deadline artists." i cove road it -- i co-wrote it.

we are living in a time when opinion writing is proliferating. i think this is the best of the bus. the best of the past combined with the present. this was a real pleasure and a labor of love. it is just out. i appreciate your mentioning a host: that. john avlon with "newsweek" and the day the peace. -- daily beast. we have about an hour and half to go in the "washington journal" and coming up next to my discussion on education funding. -- up next, a discussion on education funding. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, sohlberg constitution day with actor richard dreyfuss live saturday.

during the civil war, 25% of the union war effort was financed by california gold. find out how and why. and from oral histories, nixon's staff assistant barbara franklin on recruiting women for high- level government jobs. look at the schedule at c- span.org/history. >> in an election marred by a moral scandal and political corruption, james g. blaine lost in 1884, but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders. -- "the contenders." learn more x. c-span.org -- learn more and c-span.org

/thecontenders. track the latest campaign contributions with his band's web site -- c-span's website. it has links to c-span media partners in the early primary and caucus states c-span.org is all i/-- is c-span.org all at -- it is all at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> keep tabs on the deficit committee has been formulated plan to lower the debt and follow the presidential candidates as they campaigned across the country. it is available to you on television, radio, online and social media sites. search, watch, and share of our programs at a time of the c-span video library. -- the c-span video library.

is washington your way, the c- span that works, created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: now on your screen is a delisle jason delisle, here to ... education funding. one of the aspects of the president obama jobs proposal was funding education. the national journal found these statistics $30 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. of $25 billion to modernize 34,000 schools and $5 billion to upgrade community colleges. if you could help burk get down.

>> there are to treat pieces in here. guest: -- there are two to three pieces in here. the first piece is grants to states to pass on to schools to help alleviate layoffs. it is basically a large amount of grant money. interestingly, it is not new. this will be the third time, if this bill is enacted. it is just a proposal. if congress were to enact it, it would be the third time in three years that we have done this. the first time was in the american recovery and reinvestment act. there was a signature could amount of money in that stimulus bill passed on. host: that went to schools on top of the federal education budget guest:? yes, about $100 billion -- education budget?

guest: yes, how about $100 billion. last year, there was a $10 billion to $20 billion in the education act, designed almost identical in this third bill. host: and that has been funded? guest: it has been funded and states have access to that right now accurate -- right now. host: according to the department of education, the current budget is about $70 billion for the department of education with the request of $77 billion for the coming fiscal year. is that on top of the $60 billion and the other supplemental funding is that you have discussed guest: here? yes, that is out -- you have discussed here? guest: yes, that is how it is broken down. what you have referred to is the

funding that starts in october under the annual normal operations process. this funding would be separate and on top of that. the regular budget that the president has proposed funding for annually includes programs for things such as the no child left behind grants, the pell grant program, the standard list of special education of programs that are funded annually. but this proposal, the jobs act proposal would be on top of that. it is important to note that regular programs that are normally funded as a part of the department of education are a prescriptive. they have a lot of rules to go along with them, especially those that go to the k-12 system. but the money that would come into the jobs act, like the past two pieces of legislation that provided similar funding does not have a lot of restrictions. the only guidelines the

president has proposed, which is what was in past proposals, is simply money to prevent layoffs and create new jobs and education. host: we have divided our phone lines just a little bit differently. you can see them there on the screen. students, parents, and educators is how we have broken them down. educators includes teachers and school administrators, etc. we would like to hear what you think about this package, particularly when it comes to the $60 billion of supplemental education funding. jason delisle is our guest, the president of the education

foundations guest: it is a think tank here in washington d.c.. this is the new america foundation. it will exist to explain to journalists and parents and policy makers what the funding impact is on education programs. we also have a website where all funding information for all 14,000 school districts in the country. host: you say $60 billion supplemental on top of a $70 billion federal budget for education monies. is that a lot of money in the education pool? guest: it is a lot of money to come from the federal government. as you said, the regular budget is about $70 billion and that

includes a kid-12. it almost nodone -- doubles the normal budget. but once it trickles down to of 14,000 school districts, you are not necessarily talking about a huge amount of money for each school district. it is significant. it can prevent layoffs. as you know, as we hear from state to run the country that they are experiencing some of them to constrain -- significant strain in finding their education. they have had to do three years of this supplemental funding and this would essentially extended. host: first caller, mary, on the parents line. caller: i think parents should be the ones to blame the educate our children.

look how much money the country has -- to mainly educate our children. malakar much money the country has spent on education. -- look how much money the country has spent on education. if we need to come back to parents who bring their children along. guest: it is one of the things we struggle with in terms of trying to understand and even explain education funding in this country. there are all three levels, and sometimes more levels of government involved. you're the federal government, the state government, a local school district, sometimes charter schools that are spanning multiple school districts. the caller is certainly right in that there are many layers of government involved in our

education programs. if you look at the proposal that the president has put out for additional funding for schools, it is full of reporting requirements, things called maintenance of effort. if we push this money down from the federal level to the state level to local level, you have to labor on these requirements because nobody wants the federal government to give -- you have to later on at these requirements because nobody wants the federal government to give money without restrictions, but it also includes all of these lawyers said many people are disappointed with. money does not come in from the jobs proposal, will 280,000 teachers be laid off? guest: it is certainly possible. but those numbers on what necessarily numbers that suggest what will happen for sure. states and school districts may

have some more flexibility, but there is no doubt that they are under some strain. on ourin indiana, tom hunnicut teachers line. caller: i was a teacher for 37 years host:. please go ahead for -- for 37 years. host: please go ahead with your question. caller: i was a teacher for several years and we always got these government grant, but by the time the governor got a hold of them, they paid off stay dead. there's a lot of bureaucracy -- state debt. there's a lot of bureaucracy involved. i had a clause from budget that i had to run -- a classroom

budget that i have to run. i have to run it on $170, which was cut down to $90 when i retired. by many times had to run to wal- mart to buy 10 cent tablets. our paper for copy machines was russian art by the administrators. these are the guys -- rationed out to us by the administrators. these are the guys that he got that money. -- eat up that money. it is ridiculous. i see these guys up there noon lunch time. the money is definitely being wasted. guest: that is a pretty common observation and complaint.

some of the critics of these policies, of these large stimulus or job creation block grants to states is that it is actually helping to perpetuate some of the things the caller is talking about, where it is actually giving states and local school districts some wiggle room with which to not have to think about some of those hard choices, which might lead to creating more efficiencies and scaling down from the bureaucracies. there is a claim that state and local school districts need this funding, but there's also a flip side that in some cases it does make it easy for them to continue business as usual, which many people feel is unproductive. host: prior to working as the

director of the federal education budget project, jason delisle worked as a senior analyst of the federal budget committee and worked six years in the congressional office of tom petrie. >> the american jobs that will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. it will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows, installing science labs and high-speed internet in classrooms across this country. it will rehabilitate all the businesses and communities hit hardest by foreclosures. it will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects across the country. host: and the next call comes from santa barbara, california. howard is a student there. caller: good morning.

i am a student had use esp -- adderallucsb and a lot of -- i and a studentat ucsb and a lot of the funding that is there for students like credit for credit incentives, you take a class that qualifies and you get credit for another class, possibly helping out the campus. i think some of these grants are getting wasted by kids who are not going to class. some are, but some are not. the of the thing is, we should be promoting big industry, more education for folks that will help the future of the country. and i have a lot of friends that are taking general education and

law and business, and we have not enough students are getting into the industry. -- big industry. and my final point, the medical industry, i think the costs are all inflated. i think colleges should be regulated. it is really astonishing what folks are paying these days. guest: to get to -- i want to spend some time on the callers first point about granting free of requirements -- grants being free of requirements. the main grant is the pell grant system. the program cost, the coat -- the federal government spent

about $14 billion on it in 2008. we are now spending about $34 billion on that same program. granted, it has become somewhat more generous. but it is simply a cost that is unsustainable and congress is having to wrestle with that. some of the ideas that are coming up are very similar to what the caller is talking about, were the only requirement for the grant now is that you attend an institution of higher education and that you be of lower income. but as the budget starts to tighten and they look for ways to trim the program, there need to be incentives to actually get people to finish their program or their degree. but there is some tension there. these programs are supposed to create access and the minute you put these additional requirements on, you have

compromised the original goal of the program. host: the deficit slashed that commission, what affect would that have on -- the deficit-debt commission, what effect could that have on education? guest: the super committee is charged with a goal of finding up to $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction of the next 10 years. the committee is supposed to come up with these proposals and congress is supposed to act on them by the end of this year. for education programs, the committee for practical reasons is mostly limited to student loans, making changes in the student loan program if they want to use that to generate their savings, or changes in tax benefits that are provided

mostly to higher education. those would count toward the committee started. changing programs like the pell grant program or changes to programs that are in the annual appropriations process are practically off-limits, a technically because no funding exists for them until congress provided each year. host: we have about an hour lines by students, parents, and educators. on our parents line is martin in wichita, kansas. caller: good morning. it's one thing i want to talk about education is, we have a lack of revenue coming in, which is a problem with jobs. i think the solution to this is -- we have over 15 million illegal aliens in this country. if we were to get them all out of here and get americans into

their jobs, that would bring more tax revenue in. and if america would legalize things like marijuana, that would bring in billions of tax dollars. and it would probably create over 1 million jobs in that industry. it would bring in a lot of tax revenue. we would not have all these problems like we do have school. here in kansas we passed the lottery and those dollars go to the schools. but as the years go by, the money goes elsewhere. we have a lot of crooks that our politicians and it is hard to say what they are doing to our money. -- with our money. host: do you have kids in schools caller: now? yes, to a vote -- kids in school now? caller: yes, two in high school. host: are you satisfied with the system? caller: no, it seems like they are run more like correctional