examines the cost of the federal program called temporary assistance for needy families. "washington journal" is next. ♪ >> good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this monday morning, october 3, 2011. we will speak with l.a. times reporter david savage. and congress returns from its recess. the house and senate come in at 10:00 this afternoon. in washington post columnist has a piece today asking where is

the less equivalent of the tea party? we want to get your response to that column. here is the number to call. you can also e-mail us jou rnal@cspan.org. you can also find us on are on facebook under the handle of c-span. let's take a look at what he writes. why haven't there been a tea party on the left and can the president develop a functional relationship, he says those questions are not asked very often.

do you think there is the equivalent of 80 party on the left, or would you like to see more of a warrant? let's hear from the democrats' line. caller: i think it would be a great idea to have 80 party on the left. -- a tea party on the left.

more exposure to that health care act, not obama care. i can tell you three instances where it really helped out my family and relatives. i think it would be a great idea. host: what would the major tenants of it be? what would our people together? caller: kind of like the wall street protesters. the american middle class is slowly disappearing. i have been knocked down to about $28,000 a year, which is poverty level basically. the death of the middle-class is one of the things that holds together the nation. [unintelligible] i know you do not give comments, but i'd like to hear what others have to say.

host: we will put that question out there. a joke, in idaho. -- joe in idaho. caller: i and with the wall street protectors. they are the new left. -- i am with the wall street protectors. they are the new left. thank god for them. we need our sovereignty back. we need to get the trade agreement. bank god we have the people on wall street -- thank god we have the people on wall street. i am surprised that the "wall street journal" has been ignoring them for the past few days. these people are the only one that are going to help us get our country back.

the right is about big business, which is for enslavement of all of the middle class, what is left of it. these poor people in the united states need to look toward the wall street protests. we need protest's everywhere in the united states, any where there are financial institutions. the white caller crime needs to be addressed in this country. i wish to this station would do a significant program on these people. the: let's take a look at coverage of the ""the wall street journal"" across the country. the protest in lower manhattan entered its third week. they tried to block traffic on the brooklyn bridge. a smaller scale protest continued plant on online in social networking site.

they were gathering in chicago and other cities, but they were smaller. some are only in the planning stage. there are groups listed that are offshoots of the york protests. some began protesting outside of the u.s. including in prague, mel bourne, and montreal. here is los angeles city hall during demonstrations there. lincoln park, mich., republicans line. believe is called ""chicago the tribune"" and most of the media. host: tell us more. is it only with the media? caller: i think their voices are

well-represented across the board. i think the article written -- [unintelligible] it is the truth of what i am saying. that is all i have. host: take a look at the guests of a david gregory on "meet the press." >> what about this occupy wall street movement? demonstrations, arrests. does the president need more activism on the left to say we need a piece ponce to what we are seeing on the conservative side it? that is a big issue if people will have the same enthusiasm. >> there is a conference this week on the american dream.

i think the president has been hurt by the lack of an organized protests. the stimulus plan was not as big as most -- economists thought. it was pretty middle of the road. obama is a moderate sort of liberal. we want to push further than this. the whole discussion is skewed, because the media has been so obsessed by the tea party. host: that was "meet the press" yesterday. democrats line. caller: i thought that was perfect. one of the things i was talking about with one of my friends about republicans and democrats -- democrats need to be more like republicans.

do not give in. make it won a solid front. stick with it -- one solide front. -- a solid front. stick with it. this party is a group of a myriad of different ideas. host: you broke up on us. let's get this comment on twitter. here is what they write. dave, independent line, pennsylvania. hello, dave. caller: there is a group called the blue republicans. you will find a lot of ron paul supporters there, who are quite

independent. i did want to mention as well, two democratic voters. misplays the voting power they realized. they misplaced the voting power they realized. you want somebody in there that will be as close to your personal use as you can get. thanks. host: alice in atlanta. caller: we need a new party for the democrats. it should be called, wake up. a caller was talking about corporate greed. we need to wake up, realize that the republican party has been

accelerated by the corporate greed. they are ahead of the treasury, they give advice to our president, and they are the ones that are running the country we bigotry to destroy what it is doing. they are halting the government in hopes everybody loses their job -- and i hope everybody loses their job. hope everybody loses their job. i was one of those people that spoke up. i make very little money. i'm on disability. i did not realize how it has affected my country.

we have criminals in the government. they are in the treasury. every one of them got away with it. we needed to get all of these people, put them in jail, and make them give back money they stole from our country. host: she says the left movement should be called wake up. what do you think? caller: there does need to be 80 party movement in the democratic party. there needs to -- a tea party movement in the democratic party. there needs to be an anti-war party. if ron paul does not get the confirmation, which he probably will not, he should take one person as a running mate and run under the libertarian ticket.

they should have 15 percent in the polls, that should qualify them. people can learn the cost of perpetual war. that ticket should get 25% of the votes. host: you are calling right here from washington, d.c. on the independent line. are you interested in the wall street protests. are you explore anything like that? caller: i support that, although, i do not think they will be able to do any good. you have to work within the electoral process. the things that ron paul says is laughed at by the establishment media. people need to try to support it and overcome the media blackout on their views.

host: let's take a look at the column. he writes, the tea party on the left. this week progressives will highlight a new effort on the road not taken at a conference convened for the campaign for america's future that opens monday. there is a corporate effort with a large number of organizations, such as the green movement, led by jones, a former obama administration official. let us take a look at the website here for this conference that is happening this week. it looks like washington, d.c. take back the american dream conference. connecticut, republican line.

caller: good morning. i think that the left does not need a tea party. it was a reaction to the government over the last 40 or 50 years. conservatives have been left out of both the democratic party and the republican party. george bush was not a conservative. he was a republican progressive. so you have this progressive movement leading the way. who would say that we would have had government controlled health care 20 years ago? that was considered a communist position. now we have it, and we are calling it moderate. the progressives are doing what progressives do.

our freedoms are gone. the conservative t party is a reaction to something that has been going on. -- the conservative tea party is a reaction to something that has been going on. host: next caller, what do you think? caller: the trend is to the conservative side. i believe that is because even though there has been a a grass-ive movement, roots movement that has been out here in the country and totally ignored, even by the local media. i have called in before and asked you to look at the

influence of all of the think tanks that have banded together to create all of this legislation to the right. the libertarian type right. you regularly have on the think tanks like kato, established by the called brothers to do away with social security. you constantly have on all of these think tanks leading the country to the right, and that is just the media. the progressive movement has been out totally lost reported to the public. i think it is a great if we can find a way -- there are a few programs on nbc, but on the whole, the media goes with the

project line. all we have to do is look at what is happening to our economy. we are losing the middle class. the lady talked about the strength of the unions. they have lost strength. they were the only ones that the countervailing power to the corporate power. they are gone. they are lost. host: let us look at a comment from twitter. here is what it says. new york, on our independent line. caller: i agree with all of the comments. the bottom line is there is no response coming from the left. the media does not pick up in

states -- we are talking about the middle class. the commentators do not work like the average worker. [unintelligible] they do not understand the struggles that we go through. all they do is report. back in the 1960's and 70's, they would put the boat to the people. -- vote to the people. republicans say we need to cut back. we are struggling. we need a movement. what is going on wall street is the perfect thing. any other country had done what the banks did, they wouldn't

[unintelligible] we need to get out there and do what we need to do. we should have a found a way to stop these wars. nobody has really put a strong opposition like the wall street protesters are doing. these wars are not right. this generation is not the generation of the 1960's or '70's. from let's get a comment facebook. here is what one person rights. nebraska, robin, republican. caller: there are people called the communist party. people read the constitution.

[unintelligible] please read the constitution. read it. host: democratic college in nashville, tenn. caller: that is a word that is a fireball. we like living in a community. that is where communism comes from. it is how you look at the word, isn't it? my problem is that this tea party was born from its contributors -- i was on a local talk show, and i had just and phillips, one of the tea party guys on. -- justin phillips, one of the

tea party guys on. there was tom davis, former republican on. what was he talking about? he was talking about the results of the election. he said the smartest, brightest top 100 counties in america voted for obama. the lowest scoring educated counties in america voted for john mccain. this is how we are. the republicans gigot against their own best interests. -- vote against their own best interest. host: they say their movement has become more organized. it is following the second week in a row following mass arrests.

the wall street demonstration started out slow last month. south bend, indiana. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for your show. it is want to show my support for wall street. i think the left needs to organize and have some kind of a movement. i cannot believe how passive people have been. i think there is going to be a great uprising. i cannot wait to take part of it. that is what i have to say. host: tell me about what you think the movement would embody?

caller: i think it would embody taking our country back like the trade agreements that have been put in a sense bill clinton -- since bill clinton had a signing. and the attack on labor unions pushing out of the middle-class and the lead -- living wage for people, attacking health insurance, all of this military anism. social media involvement -- people are tired of that stuff. they are tired of not having a voice. i am so glad about this. i wish i could afford to go.

it is the beginning of some things. i think both the democrat and republican parties are not for the people by the people any longer. host: the daily mail in the u.k. has images from around the u.s., where there is a grassroots movement. here is a massachusetts uprising from a pitcher on sunday where people were camping out by the federal reserve building in boston. looking at another page, the mass movement occupied protest starting in seattle, denver, and familiar places. let us go on to another caller. new york, richard, democratic caller. caller: i think the problem is that we have been too successful.

we are an explanation, because we have traded well. the problem is wealth distribution. we have a virtually hurt the middle class. taking profits from the people that make the money and having profits distributed -- we do not have any economic problems in this country that cannot be solved by what we are doing. host: what does that say for a movement on the left? caller: i think we are misrepresenting what it means. we actually -- obama is in the middle. that is where the main allies. -- lies the mean.

host: taking of what you just said, the writer of the article looks at where obama fits into the political spectrum. he writes this. georgia, republican caller. caller: everybody else there needs to get an american history book. the democrats have caused all the problems in our history.

they started the jim crow laws. they had all of the slaves. they caused all of the problems all through history. in the second world war, they were in charge of the atomic bomb. they dropped it in your america. the republicans would have dropped it somewhere else. read the history book. you will see the democrats are never satisfied. the matter what you give them, they want more and more and more, but they do not want to do anything. host: a comment from trader rights of this. -- twitter writes this. a disputed trade pact advance. this is another story making headlines. the wall street journal reports

-- rather the president could send it to congress for approval setting the stage for the final passage of the agreement in october after five years of political combat. usa today has a headline called five ways to squeeze medicare costs that would be politically difficult and unpopular, but it is difficult to stem these programs. and a u.s. official says the sieve. border is a civ and some are looking at tax cut breaks given to a variety of groups. there are so-called loopholes, unless certain people held created them. all tax breaks are not alike. that is according to this article.

our question for you this morning is what you think about the column in the "washington post" 80 party on the left.

let us go to jeff -- a tea party on the left. let us go to jeff. are you with us? i do not think so. let's go to the next caller. caller: as far as we are concerned, we are trying to self-destruct ourselves. the tea party is nothing new. take a good look at them. you do not see very many blacks. but there may be one black. some are brainwashed. host: focus on what the left equivalent is of the two-party. is there one? should there be -- ateteat party.

is there one? should there be one? caller: [unintelligible] what ever he says do, they say do not do it. mitch mcconnell says his main goal is to do what? remember what he said? remember -- make sure that this president does not succeed. he wants obama to look bad. host: here is a republican caller from new jersey. caller: i and 7 miles outside of manhattan. -- i am 7 miles outside of manhattan. host: heavy st. the protests personally? -- have you seen the wall street protests personally? caller: yes.

i am praying that they do not destroy the park. my problem is i understand what they are doing. i understand that is what the t has been all about. what i do not understand is this hippie generation is just a recycle version -- recycled version of the 1970's. they need to identify themselves as a separate entity. i am for them, except they are costing taxpayers so much money,

because we have to constantly be there. they need to understand that these people loavote out. host: let us get a comment from twitter. ohio, where wilma joins us, independent line. caller: i am a senior citizen, and i am wall street. i live off of wall street investment. but citizens of the u.s.a. are in a wall street investment. -- most citizens of the u.s.a. are in a wall street investment. the protesters on wall street should use that energy to look for a job. i came from the slums, and i love the rich people.

socialism always equals bankruptcy. host: nick, democratic caller in franklin, maryland. caller: a lot of my comments are aimed at some of the previous callers. you have a very deceptive sector of the republican party. it is noted through some of the conversations aimed at obama care, calling it universal, which it is not. they are trying to push people to the left closer to the right by trying to advocate people to set to run paul theories. -- ron paul theories. it calls for greater deregulation. corporate salaries increasing while middle class salaries are

languishing. one solution would be to eliminate the cap on social security. if they are so concerned about the solvency of social security, don't they realize there is an upper income tax amount on social security? host: let us go on to twitter. here is what one person rights. -- writes. what do you think? let us go to gregg on a republican line joining us from brownsville, n.y. caller: i think the two-party is viewed as a peaceful force, because it is -- tea party is

viewed as a peaceful force, because it is a peaceful force. my involvement started when one of my neighbors asked me if i wanted to go on a bus trip to washington, d.c. to try to put an end to the government bond and the people as opposed to the people running the government. tell me if you approve of the behavior with these protesters, then look at the left-wing media that represents everybody. if you think that is honest and fair, i want to confer. host: you went to the rally in washington? caller: i went to every rally in washington. i want to decide what my health care is going to be. host: what are you doing on the activism level locally? caller: i am a union labor.

i do not accept what i consider to be propaganda at work. i spread the word of independence. [unintelligible] some truth is going to be taught in this country instead of the propaganda that has been taught here for the last 30 years. host: furnace, where are you calling from? -- ernest, where are you calling from? caller: massachusetts. there is a big discrepancy in terms of press coverage concerning any type of assembly of people in this country. the tea party hats -- has the backing of corporate america. if you look at the europeans when they have an assembly concerning free trade, you will

see on their media, 100,000 people covered by the press, where as in this country, they do not do that. i will tell you my information from people that i work with. i work for an international corporation. i work with people from all over the world. they say the united states does not have a free press. i am not talking about c-span. we have a propaganda machine where we have a lot of pundits and things like this. we have a labor movement like we see now going on in washington that is considered communism. that is not true. an ordinary group of people trying to make ends meet. i wish the press would cover this. if you look at the associated press, its coverage is buried inside of the newspapers. it is not on the front page. that is the difference between the coverage of news in the united states and the coverage

of news in europe. host: let us take a look at some other news stories in the papers today. the crash course for a new military chief preparing for the era of tight budgets. here is a report from the "new york times." a couple of international stories. the government of the grease

austerity measures. they will slash jobs for 30,000 people. the greek government said they had reached a deal on how to deal with the public sector, putting 30,000 people on the path for early retirement or dismissal. a libyan jew reopens a temple. it will test democratic values. and a couple of editorial pieces in the "new york times." a new gi bill to make sure that veterans really benefit. from township, mich., dorothy, on our republican line, weighing in on a column asking does the

y ft need 80 party a tea partuy movement. caller: it others are restricted, then i will become a restricted. the republicans have all of this financial backing from other people. but on the left,, george has a lot going on. there is an 8 minute interview as to why they are there. . it is insane. they do not know what their reason is for being there.

there is an interview on the website. it is really good. host: dick cheney says obama funds -- those bush an apology after the killing of al awlaki. he was a guest on "state of the nation." a couple of stories here, the obama campaign bars from -- a bush 2004s from playbook. and chris -- gov. christie will announce over the next few days whether or not he will enter

into the race for president. connecticut, albert, on average independent line. -- on our independent line. caller: i enjoy these peaceful movement. i would like to remind the american people of the importance of the american spirit and we are a paid based nation. if we could be more patriotic -- faith-based nation. if we could be more patriotic and cooperate more and he ever jobs in america, rather than send them overseas for cheaper labor and things like this. and if we could -- i think there should be more movement. i believe in peace. we are a faith-based nation.

i am a christian. the american heart, our morals, but really for our children, we have to start now. -- what we leave for our children, we have to start now. it is not looking good. we have lots of college kids. these kids, all of these institutions -- come out of these institutions. they have a lot of dreams. the american dream. a lot of these dreams are not realized. not enough people have a warm enough hard, humanity. -- warm enough heart, and humanity. host: here is what one person

writes on facebook. we have been talking about a column in the "washington post" looking at whether or not the left has the equivalent of a tea party. up next, a look at the supreme court's new term which starts today, the first monday in october. we will be joined by the l.a. times reporter david savage. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

>> oral arguments is actually the first time the justices have talked about a case together. and so when justice scalia for justice ginsburg asked a question, i can figure out what is bothering them about a case and where they are leaning. >> by losses in 1916, the new supreme court term begins on the first monday in october. this year, a case includes gps tracking without a warrant, profanity on television, and copyright protection. wash the justices from recent appearances across the country on line on the seas in video, it is searchable. it is washington your way.

with congress back in session, the house will consider a spending bill that will keep the federal government open for another six weeks through mid november, in the senate is proposing a bill. watch our live gavel-to-gavel coverage on c-span and the senate on c-span2. get more information about your local additions with the c-span congressional chronicles, including video of every house and senate in session. it is washington your way. the c-span network, created by cable, provided as a cable service -- as a public service. which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that is our question in this year's student camera competition. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the competition -- constitution that is important to you. include why along with a different point of view. there is $50,000 in total

prizes. for all of the details, go to studentcam.org. what more video of the candidates, with political reporters are saying, and a track the latest campaign contributions with the c-span website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter and facebook updates on the campaign, can it did bios and the latest polling data, plus information from the primary and caucus states. c-span.org/campaign2012. "washington journal" continues. host: david savage, thank you for being here. you can got your story writing that the supreme court opens one of its most anticipated terms in which a justice can strike down the obama healthcare lost, and

declare an end to affirmative action in colleges and universities. it could be a very dynamic term. guest: not say -- they have a lot of blockbuster cases in the next few weeks. health care and immigration are big issues. they will hear these cases all next year and hand out rulings about this next summer in the middle of the presidential election campaign. health care is an issue dividing republicans and democrats. immigration is an issue that has come up around the country. questions like if the state of arizona can pass tough immigration reforms. it is a big issue. it will be an interesting term. host: you mention health care a is a bit of an unknown.

you believe it will come up. why is that? the obama administration was in favor of the supreme court taking it on? guest: yes. it is hard to figure out how the case will come out. they want to take it is that and appears call -- appeals court said the mandate is unconstitutional. one person in ohio said it is constitutional. the court has both sides appealing, singing take the case. recently, the supreme court has to take a case from one of the regional courts if the federal law says it is unconstitutional. you cannot have a case where the federal law is unconstitutional in one part of the country and not in another. they will almost surely take up this case sometime in the next

couple of months when the appeals are ready to go. we have to figure out how it will come out. it is possible that they could rule that these cases are not right. that there is a central law that affects tax is that basically says, you cannot challenge a tax in federal court until you have paid it. it is an article that comes up rather late. the notion is no one can really challenge this to 2014 where they pay the tax penalty. almost sure the court will hear this case, but not sure how they will decide in what they will say. host: let us look at the line of justice is heading back to the bench. looking at the division from "usa today." tell us about the swing vote in

the questions people have had about if the justices should refuse themselves from the health care decisions. guest: most the conservative bloc has five votes. justice kennedy is a swing vote in some of those cases. the majority tends to be with him, justice ginsburg, justice sonia sotomayor, and justice takkagen. many will tell you, that there are a whole lot of cases that do not split along that ideological divide. there are criminal cases where they decide 9-0. in the very biggest cases, that tends to be where these litt is. -- with the split is. host: there are questions if

elena kagen should exclude yourself from the health care laws. some say she may help prepare defenses for the law. some called on justice clarence thomas to recuse himself because of his wife's involvement in lobbying against the law on grounds that it was unconstitutional. guest: it seems very political. almost all republicans and conservatives would want elena kagen to step aside. almost all democrats and liberals would what clarence thomas to step aside. a lot of people say he should step aside.

but the truth is a justice -- his spells can do what he wants, and it does not affect how he decides a case. the same thing with elena kagan. she said at her hearings and has continued to say this that she did not actually work on the health care litigation. therefore, she was going to participate on that case. the truth is that there will be taught about refusals, but none of them are going to step aside from these cases. host: david savage, a reporter for the los angeles times, is our guest. immigration and other big decisions could come down at a highly charged time politically. there was a piece saying it could influence the 2012 race. guest: they should not take into

account, but they should decide this case in view of the law. they cannot decide how we are going to affect the election and should we take a case at a particular time. i do not think it will affect when they take up a case or what they decide. i do think the outcome may have some impact on a race. host: let us get to the phone lines, independent line, indiana. caller: you have the recent decision in arizona about the immigration law. you also have a very similar law that was upheld, i am having a kind of moment. alabama. they are very similar, but they are very different rulings. i was wondering how that might affect the this coming to the supreme court, if you have any

ideas about that. guest: a good observation. the classic situation where the supreme court intervenes is when the courts around the country are divided on a common legal issue. this is just such an example. the law was put on hold by judges in phoenix. the alabama law, a similar law, allows the state and the police to set up question and arrest illegal immigrants. the obama administration says of alabama that you cannot do that. immigration is a federal matter. the judge allowed that law to go into effect. common-law a different result in the courts, and it increases the likelihood that the supreme court will pick up the arizona case to rule on this question of can the states on their own enforce immigration laws, even if the federal government would

prefer that they stand back. host: let us talk about the issues of personal freedom. asking if police need a search warrant with attacked -- tracking a gps monitoring to a car. -- monitor to a car. guest: this is big where you can track anyone anywhere they go. the question is can the police were federal agents track a motorist for a month or two and follow them everywhere they go. the government says you have no right to privacy when you are on a street. the fourth amendment protects your right to privacy at home. they cannot listen to your phone calls. the notion is once you get in your car and drive on a public street, a plainclothes officer can follow you. the governments of view is since you have no right to privacy

where you drive, we can use this technology to follow you everywhere in track you without a search warrant. the other side says, this is an unreasonable search. if you can use computers -- imagine if you could track every citizen to some technology all of the time. would we want to live in a country where there is that type of total surveillance? that case comes up in november and it could be very interesting to see how they view that issue. host: talk about the specifics of what would be the exact situation in a case where police suspected a gentleman of dealing drugs. guest: mr. jones was an owner of a nightclub in northwest d.c. the police believe he was involved in a cocaine operation. they did not know exactly who was involved in it. they wanted to build a case against him.

they tracked his car going back and forth to some steakhouse. they raided the house and fall -- found a lot of cocaine and drugs. when he was convicted, his attorney tried to keep out the information about the movement. the judge said not an unreasonable search. when the case went to they overturned his conviction and said it was it fourth amendment violation. the government cannot -- it would be one thing if they fall due for a day -- if they followed you fridafor a day. the supreme court has to resolve this question. host: our obama, derek, it democrats -- alabama. caller: my question is about the

supreme court and its ability to weigh a case objectively. you mentioned that more than likely the conservative view and leave towards a liberal view. is it really possible to ever have a case that is truly based on the laws when at the end of the day, everyone on the supreme court goes home and they are going to be people just like me and you. about this immigration thing that is about to hit the fan. this is common practice. research on the tenancy of police dispatch. a black man over here does not seem to be in place. then people will profile him.

there is no way to tell if mexicans are immigrants or not. does it have to be something to come down white people? you cannot pick and choose if somebody is racist? if that was the case, how many white people will be pulled over and profiled? a larger percentage of pedophiles and rapists, people who commit mass murder or all white. -- are all whilte. guest: there are nine justices. they have their own views on law. i think they do their best to sit with the law is and their understanding of the law. when the lower courts are split

-- on the example you mentioned, i think if you have a situation where there was explicit racial profiling, that all the justices would say that is wrong and unconstitutional. what happens is that we don't get cases that are that clear. but i do believe if the police were using race in an explicit way and saying, let's stop black motorists or whatever, that is the allegation. if that was the case that police were doing that, i think all nine justices would say, we cannot do that the government. there are a lot of -- i know this issue will come up. it will not be decided right away in this case, racial

profiling of hispanics. the supreme court will decide the big picture question of whether the states can go ahead and do this on their own against the wishes of the federal government. host: let's talk about another case. this one looks at the question of a death row inmate and whether or not his lawyers were ineffective and botched the opportunity for him to get a fair trial. is a missed deadline to file an appeal justification to reject a death row inmates argument? guest: this is what you'd call a screwup, which is not a legal term. you have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. he had some attorneys in new york that were representing him.

they left the law firm and the notice was not seen by anybody. the time to file past. when he went forward in the court, the judge said, sorry, you did not appeal on time. hear appeals cannot be heard -- your appeals cannot be heard. it comes down to a question -- a lot of justices and judges are inclined to say the rules of the roles. you have to follow the rules. if you don't, you lose. this going to do differently because it was your attorneys fault. the outcome will not affect the is. this is one that divides the justices. some of them like to follow the rules and some of the others are

inclined to say, this does make any sense, or this rule is fundamentally unfair, or this rule shall not apply to this person because it wasn't his fault. this could split 5-4 because the attorney made the mistake. host: when you watch arguments like that, how big of a sense do you get that the justices are weighing in at that the lot is the law -- the law is the law as far as his individual story? guest: i think it happens all the time. there is the law on one side and the justice question on the other. host: do you sometimes know which way they are going to go?

guest: i think you can pretty much tell. a lot of the justices have a relative clear view. they will say, our job is not to do justice in each case. our job is to apply the law. others will say, we need to stand back and make sense of the law and be fair. there's always the debate about applying the law strictly are being fair in a particular case. host: this is what pamela says. that is coming to us from twitter. guest: the term limits comes up quite often. i do not think either one is likely to happen. it would require a constitutional amendment.

the constitution says they get to serve for life and they are appointed. it is an unusual situation to have a light -- elena kagan said when john roberts called her after she was confirmed, he said, he wanted to walk, her to the court and she said, only 25 years? it is an unusual job where you become a justice and you can be there for perhaps 30 years. host: let's look at another issue. this is the question about whether cameras should be in the courtroom. here is elena kagan. >> i said before i do think it would be a good idea. i differ from some of my colleagues. in this last year, i have come

to better understand the opposite position. but i guess the reason that i i was watching case after case after case. this is an unbelievable court to watch. this was the court before i got onto it. everybody was so prepared, so smart, so obviously, the concern about getting to the right answer. i thought if everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how operated. i thought it was a shame that only to wonder people a day can get to see at -- only 200 people a day can get to see it. host: kenneth starr weighed on

this today in "the new york times." host: he thinks this would give more people a view of what is going on. are you sensing any movement? guest: elena kagan is one good vote. i've been talking about this for

years. it has been a long time. c-span and others have said we will telecast these live, not just sound bites. it is easy to say what you would be good. elena kagan has a good point. if people watch, there would be impressed. they are well prepared on all the cases. you come away impressed. these cases are hard but they are doing it well. if you ask a justice to talk about it, one of the things i often hear them say is they remember the house and senate 30 years ago before tv was there. senators will tell you they get on the floor and actually debate issues. when tv came, it changed the

nature of the debate and discussion. people talk to the cameras and made political speeches and no longer engaged in debate. they actually think that cameras would -- could change the nature of their arguments. attorneys would get up and perhaps give political speeches to the justices rather than engage in conversation. they are worried that it would have a bad impact on their deliberations. i know the public would like to see it, but they are not willing to go along with eit. host: kenneth starr is now the president of baylor university.

host: they don't have to run for reelection, as members of congress do. guest: i think there is possible there could be growing pressure to try to legislate this and pushed the courts. john roberts said -- they doubted the audio recordings and they are available each week. -- they do the audio recordings. you'll be able to listen to them for people who are interested in the law. i still think it is a ways off before the vote in favor of cameras in court. caller: good morning.

thatt don't believe conservatives should have the power to tell the re-enter 10 million people what they can do and what they cannot do. -- to tell 310 million people what they can do and what they cannot do. to me, that's just political. and i do believe there should be term limits. thank you. that is all i have to say. guest: you are not alone in that view. the laws have been on the books saying that corporations cannot give money to election campaigns. unions were in the same position since world war ii. all this money is about campaigns and elections, the

first amendment protects campaigning and political messages and therefore we should allow -- we must allow people to spend money on a campaign ads. but i agree with you. there remains a controversial view. people think it is a bad idea to have that much corporate money and union money flowing into politics. host: we have an opinion on twitter. host: we will see how that plays out. guest: that is a good point to raise. does it violate the fourth amendment to track someone's car for a month? the justices said -- does it violate the rights to attach

this device to a person's car? it is quite possible that some of the justices might think in principle this is ok, but i do not like the idea of an aged being able to attack someone to some -- being able to attach something to someone's car. caller: i hope you'll let me set this thing up so that the american people will understand what is going on in the courts. i just filed a writ. people not pay so they can look at it for themselves. the united states supreme case is 10-9117. let me set this up for you.

anthony davis was executed. the youngest person in the united states was a 14-year-old black child. he had -- the me show you what happened to me -- let me show you what happened to me. a judge took my case. the judge sought the case out. let me tell you what happened. he took that case. what he did -- he dismissed the defendant out of the case. they hired the public defender down here to represent the poor people while the prosecutor supervised the state employee. host: what is the problem? caller: you have federal courts

knowing that these atrocities are being committed on the citizens of the united states. the eighth circuit does not review these cases. the supreme court will not even vote to. -- will not even vote to hear it. they still will not hear what is going on. guest: i think the last thing you said sounds like a better way to resolve a case. this sounds like a complaint about a judge and how a judge has handled a case. a better way to proceed is to file a complaint with the server court of appeals. the supreme court, they look for cases that raise an important legal issue that cuts across all lot of issues. they cannot do justice -- they get about 8000 appeals every

year. the cannot do justice to a thousand cases -- 8,000 cases. any person who loses in the lower-court can file a petition in the supreme court, they cannot take cases, particularly if they enroll individual allegations of misconduct or bad behavior. but some of the circuit courts of appeals to take complaints seriously about judges. that would perhaps be the better way to resolve this. host: an image of "the washington times" of the red mass that gets under way. this is at the cathedral of st. matthew the apostle. you can see the chief justice of there.

houston texas, viola. caller: i was wondering if mr. savage was aware of the fact that clarence thomas and his wife failed to report $700,000 of income tax -- of income that she earned through working for the tea party. some parts of the tea party. lobbying or something to defeat the health-care bill. would now be a big factor, that he should recuse himself -- wouldn't that be a big factor? host: we have 8 twa tweet. host: we have talked about some of this, this idea of the justices' role.

what the espouses do and their role on the bench. guest: there was a strange situation involving the disclosure. you stated it mostly correctly. on the annual disclosure forms, there is a line that says " spouse's income" and it is the source and the rough amounted. for some reason, for several years when justice thomas's wife was for him at the heritage foundation, he just checked "no spousal income." everybody knew she worked at the heritage foundation. there was nothing wrong or mysterious about that. for a number of years, he simply check "no." to when this was brought to its attention, he then filed the

amended forms and said yes, she did work there and the rough income was this amount. and so a lot of groups have come forward and said this is a major mistake. but it is a strange one because it is not a mystery and everybody knew it. he did clarify and correct the forms. i don't think there'll be any lasting impact. i did not think he will now step aside on the health-care case because his wife has a view on the matter. host: do we know what the ramifications would be as far as penalty if they fail to disclose -- there can be big consequences for members of congress. guest: the justices say they comply with these forms. it is not clear how much

congress can force them to disclose. i do think it's important to correct the form, but i do not think there'll be any consequences. host: let's look at another case. the or argument will be coming up in january -- the oral argument will be coming up in january. guest: the notion was that the government could regulate television over the air because the was a limited spectrum. we have this tradition with broadcasters, they can be regulated and the government can of regulations like no four- letter words during prime time. at the same time, we have cable tv, the internet, satellite, and

all those things have first amendment free-speech rights. this case comes up for the broadcast networks were fined for some of these programs and use and exploit when somebody wins an award and the sec said we're going to find new -- the fcc says, we're going to find you. they said it slipped on the air. it was just an accident. but they got fined. but now the courts will decide if these old rules violate the first commemorates of the broadcasters. this case is an interesting divide on the conservative side. a lot of the conservatives are

strong believers in the first amendment free-speech. this is sort of a family that i use issue. -- this is sort of a family values issue. so there is a hard question to say, are we going to give broadcasters free-speech rights when it could mean for millions of americans hearing stuff on tv that they would rather not have in their house. host: redford, michigan, good morning, philip. let's go to texas, jim. caller: our founding fathers did not intend three branches of government to be equal. the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful. it's nonsense to think that the

courts should share equal power. i like the idea of tv in the supreme court. i think the argument that it would turn into some reality show light the house and senate floor, i don't think that argument is very strong because the rules are very different in the courtroom. no i homonyms -- no ad homonyms. that is what i would like to say. thank you. guest: he made the point about whether the supreme court was envisioned as an equal branch. the legislative powers -- article one is about the powers of the legislation.

the supreme court's power are quite narrow. most people would think the president has an enormous amount of power compared to congress. the supreme court has a narrow power, which is to review a lot bank in to see to it that it is in line with the constitution -- which is to review a law to see that it is in line with the constitution. they pass laws. they do have a limited but very important role to make sure that the loss comport with the constitution. host: monica from ohio on the democrat's line. hello. caller: i was calling about the tracking device.

you sing it was a month they contract -- you say it was a month they can atrack. i didn't have any kind of record or anything. host: who is tracking you? caller: the law officials. --on't have any kind of anything on my record or anything. i am wondering why they are collecting data like that. you have people watching you where you go from -- why are they collecting that data and what they going to use it for? is there any oversight? guest: that is a question i probably cannot answer as to why they are collecting data.

it's probably fair to say that if a small town or city, if the police are registered in somebody and they think an individual is involved in some crime, i cannot lead the police would waste their time tracking innocent people. if the police have some reason to think somebody is involved in a crime, they may keep an eye on the person and say, is this person going to this particular building or whenever? so the question is going to be whether the fourth amendment, whether it is an unreasonable search to find some way in a technological -- in a technical way for months of a time. host: amber weighs in about cameras in the court room. let's talk about another case that is coming up this week. oral arguments on wednesday.

whether teachers in religious schools are protected by anti- discrimination laws. guest: i thought this would have been resolved 30 years ago. you think, how was this not resolved years ago? the first amendment protect the free exercise of religion. everybody agrees that the tellnment -- they couldn't the catholic church you would have to hire women as priests. everybody knows there is some limit that the federal anti- discrimination law cannot reach into a church or synagogue and tell them who to hire or who not to hire. there are parochial schools whose mission is educational. can a teacher in a program school sue her school for violating in this case the

americans with disabilities act. the school's view is that this teacher was called to her mission, that her job is to communicate in teach the faith. part of her school day was teaching religion. the government through these anti-discrimination laws cannot telos who to hire and who to keep on the job. if we wanted to get rid of a teacher, that is our business. the anti-discrimination laws protect teachers including teachers and parochial schools. that is the government view. lawyers called the ministerial exception. there was an exception for ministers. does that exception extend to cover teachers in a parochial school.

host: what else are you watching this week? guest: 8 cases morning involving medicaid and california. california wants to cut back how much money it is providing for medicaid providers. doctors, pharmacists, hospitals. california enacted several cuts. doctors and hospitals went to court and said the state has to provide sufficient money so that there will be providers for poor people who need doctors and what you're doing is going to deprive these people of medical care. the courts in california blocked the cuts from going into effect. the state has appealed to the supreme court. the obama administration is on their side. they are saying courts have no lawyer. this is to be negotiated between

sacramento and washington. can judges in courts stop state cutbacks in medicaid spending? that is a big deal. almost every state is under pressure to reduce their medicaid spending. host: david savage, a reporter "los angeles times for. -- a reporter for "los angeles times." thank you for being here. up next we will talk about banks charging fees on debt accords. -- debit cards. >> international stock markets are down today. british treasury chief says time is running out for a solution to the eurozone debt crisis. he said europe must find a deletisolution.

the year to do so would be terrible for the entire economy. dow futures are down about 50 points. protesters continue speaking out about what they call corporate greed and other issues. today they are dressed as corporate zombies. the a u.s. scientist is sharing the nobel prize for medicine today. three are being recognized for their work on the immune system. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> for the first time, americans love access to connectivity through a satellite network. >> the head of

lightsquare. "the communicators," to mine at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> charles evans lost his bid for the presidency. he served as a secretary of state and the chief justice of the u.s. he is one of the 14 men featured in "the contenders." friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for a preview, watch a number of videos about him and our special website -- at our special website. >> "washington journal" continues. host: thomas evans is president

and ceo of bankrate. we're hearing that banks will make customers pay for the use of debit cards. guest: this was just legislated and requires limits on debit swipe fees that banks can charge a retail. it goes from 44 cents to 24 cents. so banks are losing that income. that is not an insignificant amount of money for those debit swipes. that is what is coming out of their bottom line. host: there is a report from times tim"the new york times."

other banks are planning to do this too. guest: chase and wells fargo are testing a $3 fee. a number of banks are trying to get a competitive advantage. citibank said they will not be charged a monthly fee. banks are trying to make that up somewhere. one way they can do that is by eliminating free checking or by charging a monthly fee for debit card swipes. host: you mentioned the durbin amendment. this was to give retailers a break because banks charge them whenever a customer has a transaction. what is the impression now as far as how effective that would be of customers are going to be paying money on their anend?

guest: congress and the durbin amendment are trying to do something. it looks punitive. are retailers going to pass that savings along to customers and retail? it is doubtful that they will, but time will tell. it is hoped that senator durbin that they will. the dodd-frank amendment was something meant to do something for consumers. the impact will be negligible. i think banks will find a way to make money. they tried to take money somewhere else and there will try to find it somewhere else. their companies and have shareholders and they are looking to make money. host: what did die of fright say about the fees that merchants charge for using -- what did dodd-frank say about using fees

that merchants charge? what the consumer would pay? guest: a lot of that is yet to be determined. how credit-card issuers and banks can deal with customers, what they can charge, how much they can charge in fees. how much they can raise credit card fees during the course of a year. the durbin amendment is coming in on the heels to define -- parts of that were left undefined in the dodd-frank amendment. host: our guest is thomas evans, president and ceo of bankrate. here are our phone numbers -- host: let's get right to

charles. caller: i am in tampa bay. i thank you both for being there and having the discussion. my point is the banks are seeing what ever they charge -- it is kind of like being a congressman. the way that the charge those fees to us as consumers are subjected to whether we have money or whether we don't have money. the debit cards -- you are spending money that you already have. that can be seen as a villainous or not. but the banks have to make a profit. i don't think you can take anything in the financial discussion away from what we're trying to do.

what they or we are trying to do in reforming wall street. have i said to much -- too much? host: if you wrap up your thoughts. caller: did you say to hold on? host: wrapup your thoughts. caller: i want to -- host: charles? caller: have meaningful discussion on this and other topics. host: ok. guest: charles, i think you're getting -- banks are a business. they make money by taking in capitol and letting the capital out and charging interest rates and fees for the use of the capital. they raise capital and assess

risks and use that money to generate fees and interest. it's a tough time for banks. banks are being vilified. you have protests on wall street going after banks for making profits and paying large bonuses and taking government money to keep them afloat. it is a real critical time for banks. they are trying to step back and say, how do we charge a fair amount for those services? in the debit card swipe fees, if you have a mortgage with debt, if you keep $15,000 or more in that bank, you are exempt from that monthly fee. $60're talking about $35 to a year. some people find that significant.

some people will stay with that bank. they are looking -- a changing time for banks and four legislation. everybody is trying to get their arms around what happens at how we deal with the financial crisis going forward so that we don't have another crisis. we have to be careful about trying to be too punitive. some of these things look punitive and some look like they are common sense. the idea of limiting costs and having retailers lowered the rates, lower prices is a meaningful attempt. i don't think it will work. i don't think that will cost retailers to lower their prices, but time will tell. host: let's look at the story from "the washington post."

"bank of america stumbles." host: "many customers are feeling nickeled and dimed." one consumer expresses frustration. it seems like a tough measure to put on working people. what is the concern about backlash? guest: whether it changes banks behavior or not, time will tell. a consumer backlash and the government backlash towards banks is real. i think people are upset that banks were released complicit as for a number of other people in

getting us into this financial crisis. i think people want their pound of flesh. people are angry at wall street. people are angry at the government. we're going to have to see how this works out over time. banks or businesses. they are in business to make money and to provide a service to consumers. one thing that they do -- you have very low spreads between the amount of capital they raise and what they are paying for that. interest rates have never been lower. so banks are looking for other ways to make money. we do a study at bankrate, a checking study. 80%, a 5% of banks provided free checking. that number is now under 50% -- 80%, 85% of banks provided free

checking. they are doing this to make money. if consumers don't like it, there are lots of banks out there and lots of opportunities. if consumers find that be a vapor chase or citi is not providing -- if consumers find that bank of america or chaste or citi is not doing their job, they will go elsewhere. host: what is bankrate finding among banks? is it the larger chains their imposing these fees? where can consumers go? guest: banks with assets under $10 billion are exempt from the durbin amendment.

so your community bank, your small institutions and your local institutions are exempt from the durbin amendment. this is a directed towards big banks, those with over $10 billion in assets. consumers can go to a lot of places. bankrate provides a platform for competitive shopping. people can see what banks are providing in terms of products and fees and in terms of services. people are more and more active in looking to make smart decisions. the consumer can always be shopping around. there is nothing that is holding you to a particular institution. host: thomas evans is president and ceo of bankrate. here is what the website says. the website has a financial

information and offers data and financial content. its surveys approximate 4000 financial institutions in 50 states to provide unbiased rates to consumers. lancaster, pennsylvania, adam, welcome. caller: talking about jurchoice. it is almost laughable. we get charged a fee. the man wants to put a cap on that -- the amendment wants to put a cap on that. a swipe of up to 40 cents a charge, 44 cents.

that reflects on our bills and services. i believe in a free market solution. to sayow what the dobblou dobbs it has to be x amount of dollars. this is a skimming of all retail sales. this is grotesque what they're allowed to do to america. a recent study said that it kostis banks about 1 1/2 cents for every transaction. these banks want to make money. you don't get to advertise just because every american is forced to use this service. host: let's get a response. guest: i don't think anybody is

forced to use any service. you can pay by cash or check or credit card. i'm not here as the defender of banks. i'm here to tell you what is going on. consumers one choice, convenience, and to be able to use debit cards and credit cards and to get money from their atm. there is a fee associated with providing that service. if you do not like the feet your bank is charging for an a tm, you can go somewhere else. walk up to the teller and get money. that is free if you're using your own banks local branch. there is a cost for providing that service. that is what banks are in the business of doing.

there is risk assessment and making money on the spread. host: we are talking with thomas evans of bankrate about the new fees that banks are charging. have you changed your usage in the past year or two when you move from may credit card to a debit card to be able to pay for things out right. is this affecting your choices about banking? you can give us a call. we have a comment from scott. thomas evans, take us to the reality of where banks need to be making money. could they stay competitive if they do not charge fees like these debit card usage fees? guest: i did not have an opinion one way or another on ceo

salaries. these are businesses and they look to charge where they can make money and a look at what the service they are providing, the competitive environment, and where they can make money. if you tell mcdonnell's you can charge less for a hamburger, they will charge more for soft drinks and french fries. they are in business to make money. they have certain profit goals. financial institutions are no different. they provide a service and charge a fee for that. whether we believe that is a fair fee -- the consumer is free to go elsewhere. citibank is not charging for -- not charge a monthly fee for

debit customers and they think it will be a competitive advantage. there is a convenience or in giving its with having to switch your bank account and your checking accounts and other kinds of things. we'll see what the consumer reaction is. host: greg, will this change the way you do banking? caller: i don't bank and a bank. i go to a credit union. this durbin law is a disaster. maybe we should look at our antitrust laws. maybe they should be broken down to a billion or half a billion dollar banks. create an equal playing field for all of the entities that

would be broken down through the antitrust law. that goes for car manufacturers. i think that's a big problem. there is not enough competition. guest: i think your car press to say there's not enough competition. i think to make a great point about credit unions an community banks. we tend to focus on the largest banks. there's a lot of competition out there and there is a lot of choice for the consumers. there are 7500 banks where you can get a mortgage or a checking account or you could get credit cards or all kinds of services. it depends how much the consumer wants to shop at how much they

want the convenience. i do a lot of travelling so i am a customer of one of those large banks because when i'm in chicago or san francisco, i want to be able to walk up to an atm machine or an airport -- that does not mean that is right for everybody. there's tremendous competition. i think that what the durbin amendment is trying to do is to level the playing field. banks will try to charge what they can and keep those customers. it is up for the consumer to decide what is right for them. to this jomon, a credit union is a great alternative. -- to this gentleman, a credit union is a great alternative. it depends on how the individual consumer wants to interface with that institution.

host: slide feet regulation will still allow banks to cover the actual costs -- swipe fee regulation will still allow banks to cover the actual costs. guest: the idea was to limit the amount of money that banks are going to make on swipe fees. we will see whether it lowers

the rates of retail. i think the retailers are going to use that to prove their profitability. there will limit the overdraft feet and they look for other areas to make money. the impact where they're limiting banks' ability to raise what we have seen has made it more difficult for consumers to get crowded. if you're a consumer with anything but the best credit, this is difficult to get a credit card. it is difficult to get a mortgage. rates are very very low. banks are less willing to take risks, less willing to write mortgages for people that have

less then stellar credit scores. the unintended consequences is that is more difficult for some of the small businesses for people to access their credit. the banking structure is an old but credit-starved. people are free to take on more debt. i think it's a difficult environment. it'll take us some time to get out of this trap. host: let's hear from andrea. will this affect the way you make purchases? caller: it absolutely will. a few years ago, banks for encouraging people to use debit cards to join a rewards program. i had a bank account set up so

that you read it rewards program each time you used your debit card. it encouraged people like me to stop writing checks at the grocery store and use your debit card. that took a lot of encouraging. now they want to pull that out from under you. excuse me for not feeling badly about banks. i hope there is a backlash. i hope some of the seniors will join those on wall street. this is just one more mixed message. how was it a couple years ago you got rewards for using its debit card and now you're going to charge fees? host: many of the banks or limiting their debit card reward programs. caller: i read about this about six months ago and i asked my bank about that. they said, we don't know anything about that. were not honest about

that. i belong to a credit union. i may switch my money there or keep it under the mattress. you can walk up to a teller and get your money. yes, you can. and i can do that. i am a senior. some of that was convenience be. i hope there is a backlash on this, because they're just playing around with the working people again. guest: i think you are spot on. we have seen it at bankrate where credit rewards programs have been scaled back. free checking used to be in a 80% of the banks now are under

50%. we have seen a lot of services that are charging more in the non-branded atm's if you're not going to your bank's atm. they are charging more for that. i disagree with that. i am not in defense of the banks. i am trying to explain what they're doing. they're not like any other business, retail store, where they are trying to make more money. you have a responsibility to shareholders and are trying to make money. i agree with you that a number of products that were being offered, like record that it is, have been cut back -- reward debits have been cut back. it is more difficult than it was in the past.

look for the best product and determine who you want to do business with. i'm not sitting here in defense, just explaining what is going on in the industry. host: a recent "the new york times" stories saying that people have shifted spending to the debit cards from credit cards, but some analysts predict those could reverse with these new bank fees. our guest is thomas evans, president and ceo of bankrate. are there other charges are costs that are coming out? guest: overdraft fees, the elimination of free checking, charging for services that they are charging for now. again, the classic business of taking in money, deposits, lending money out is a tougher

business than it was. the credit crisis has hit and it is tougher access loans, topper to access credit. your people or qualifying. the underlying consequences is that this is making it tougher for middle americans to get any kind of loan, whether it is a small business, credit card, and it is extraordinarily difficult unless you are a best customer, arguably the people who need it least are in the driver's seat. if you have great credit, and you can get a phenomenal rate refinancing at that mortgage. but cannot get it if you do not have a job or good credit.

i do not know how we, as a country, get out of this trap when the majority of people cannot get a job, a card, and it does not look like there are any policies addressing those issues. banks are trying to make money by charging for the services that they provide. they will charge what they can come to provide the services to consumers that they think are valuable. in they can bank at a large multi-national, a local credit union, and they are shifting sands. consumers need to be savvy and smart and know what financial products they're using common know what works for them best.

host: and arbor, mich., on the independent line. caller: i have multiple issues with this. i am a small business owner and i have a letter from bank of america. theye credit card anend, are moving me to a different tier. i am now a mid-qual. i just have that letter, but i do not have it handy. they shifted like four things and the rates are going to be different. the rates for a visa will be higher. then, on the consumer point of view, it did start nickel and diming for these. if they are charging for statements, and they can overdraft. they can get nailed for up to

$35 per transaction. right now, with interest rates so low on mortgages and things, and having no cap on credit, on they have a margin that is an godly. -- is ungodly. they are making 30% or better on every credit spread. it is outrageous. guest: i do not disagree with anything that you said. there has never been a tougher time to be small business. accessing credit in this environment is brutal. this is not making it easier for small businesses and consumers to access credit. you could access it made it much more difficult. the underwriting criteria for banks has risen dramatically.

the people who need the least amount of help are the people who have the most access to credit. i am not sure what the intended consequences are of the card back, but that is a consequence is that only the people with the best credit, the greatest financial wherewithal can get access because they are afraid of underwriting people. providing credit to people who are not as credit worthy is a higher risk. they look at risk tables, customer profiles, and that is how they make their determinations. it is a very difficult environment and a very difficult environment for a small business. i think that people just have to

be -- sometimes there is no solution. you cannot find a local bank, a credit union that will provide you a better deal, but certainly people are shopping around and we see that activity on our sites, whether it is bankrate or creditrates.com, and people are actively shopping. host: we are talking about the bank moved to charge fees that limits the fees banks can charge merchants every time a consumer uses a debit card to make a purchase. this is part of the durbin amendment in the dodd-frank overhaul. guest: i'm sorry?

cash's still the legal tender of the united states and there is not a retail store that will not take cash. with proof of identity, most retail locations will still take a check. we have gotten to a point where we like the point that we do not have to carry cash and we can just swipe our card. there is a cost associated with that. i'm not justify or trying to make excuses for those charges, but it is a competitive environment. you can always walk around with cash. the average debit swipe is $38. people are willing to pay and merchants are willing to pay banks an average of 44 cents for that convenience. merchants can say they are not taking debit cards and just taking cash and it is a $38

charge, so it is not like you have to walk around with a giant wad of cash. there is a price to be paid for that and banks are taking advantage of that convenience. host: off of twitter -- he brings a good point. it seems like they're not going to charge you to use your card at the atm, only to make purchases. is that correct? guest: that is correct. if you are a bank of america customer and you end up that day -- at a citi atm, there is a charge. host: there already was. joe, republican. caller: i agree with the bank's having a right to make a profit.

i would like to know how mr. evans feels about this proposal, especially with bank of america being one of the worst. there should be no foreclosures on military people. [unintelligible] host: if we can take the first part of your question, he says there should not be any foreclosures on members of the military. guest: wow. that is above my pay grade. i'm not qualified to make that decision. any program that supports and honors our military, i would be in favor of. i do not know if that is the right program are not. i would need to know an awful lot more. the biggest problem right now is that there are a lot of people in foreclosure, a lot of people upside-down in their house and we are in an environment where

the market has not cleared, if you will come to where we real- estate prices are bringing back up. it is a problem. there's nothing the government has done to date other than try to stabilize the system in 2008 and 2009 which has not helped the real-estate market. lowering interest rates has, again, helped those people that can qualify, but i do not think it has done anything to significantly improve the foreclosure market or delinquencies that are occurring across the country because of real estate prices having fallen and unemployment being so high. again, i'm not qualified to make a comment about the proposal regarding the military, but it is a tough environment out there and it is not yet on the mend the, in my opinion. host: manchester, ohio, and the

democratic line. welcome. you are on with thomas evans. caller: i do not like his nonchalant attitude. just $60 per year? ok. the copiague -- a copay on my medicine is $5. i only make $600 a month on disability. host: he is not a banker. he has commented about how this could hit people hardest. caller: i have two daughters in kentucky. the state has elected to put all child support money into chase debit accounts.

they just go ahead and use these cards thinking they have to use this and i think it is awful. guest: first of all, i am not being nonchalant. i am here not as a defender of the banks, but i'm trying to explain what we see at bankrate.com in the consumer environment. i think the prepaid bank cards do not have any fees attached to them. i do not know this particular program in the state of kentucky, but most of them do not have a piece associated. that money is in there and is accessible by the debit card in there are no fees except for the merchant that the retail level which will now be reduced from an average of 44 cents down to 21 cents. host: the impact of financial

regulatory reform. let's look at the details. consumer satisfaction fell to 79%. 37% of consumers reduced their use of credit cards increasing the shift from credit to data. we have been talking about the durbin amendment which has created a multi-tiered requirement for regulators. we're seeing some of that come into play right now. as of saturday, banks will no longer to charge merchants every time a consumer uses a credit card. george on the independent line in hobart, indiana. caller: if you are not defending the banks, who are you defending? what is your reason on this show

if you are not defending the consumer nor the banks? guest: i was asked to come to talk about the impact of the durbin act on the consumers and the banks. host: the website is bankrate.com. guest: we run a business that is a network of web sites. bank rate, interest.com, creditcards.com, and we provide calculators, tools, stories, as well as the rates available provided by banks on a variety of financial products across the country. we are a marketplace for the consumer can come in and find the best 30-year fixed mortgage or the best credit cards available at your looking for a rewards card, cash back card, interest only available to you

in indiana. we are a service to the consumer, a conduit between the consumer and financial institutions, whether they be a card issuer, insurance carrier or banks. banks provider operation on our website, consumers can access that and we serve as the marketplace, as a middleman for that intermission. we have a great view on what is going on with the consumer at any point in time. what consumers are interested in, what they are concerned about, what products they find valuable and helpful, and what banks, issuers, and insurance carriers are marketing at any point in time. we do a survey every year that

just talks about what banks are providing. banks have gone from providing free checking, 80% of them, and now it is about 45% now. not saying that is good or bad, but that is what is going on. we did not make that determination, but we just provide that information and the accessibility to the consumer. host: let's briefly get to the heart what they're talking about. it seems like they're channeling anchoret the banking industry, -- anger at the banking industry. reflect on that for us. guest: nobody has been more vilified than banks. there were certainly complected, not the only party, but certainly complicity in getting us into the financial crisis.

the government certainly has to except some of that blame, consumers have to upset some of that blind, and consumers have to accept some of that blame. there is no worse human in the world right now in the eyes of the public and the media than a bank. there probably done a lot to learn that in terms of the amount of rest that they take on, the loans that they made, undocumented loans, loans to people who should not have gotten credit, and you have seen the impact of that. you have seen the impact of the financial meltdown when banks were leveraged much more dramatically than they ever had been before and had an economic downturn. it was an economy built on housing bubble and you have seen the impact of the bursting of that bubble. banks are in the cross hairs and

they earned that reputation. i am not sitting here defending banks. i am talking about what we see going on with bankrate, what products are being offered, and how consumers are shopping for those products. host: thomas evans, president and ceo of bankrate. coming up, looking at your money. but first, an update from c-span radio. >> defense secretary leon panetta says the jewish homeland is becoming increasingly isolated in the region and that israel's leaders need to restart negotiations with the palestinians. he made these remarks last night as he traveled to the mideast. but the israeli defense minister response today to the secretary's remarks saying that israel has a responsibility to try and ease tensions in the region and find a way to resume negotiations.

secretary panetta meets today in televisa on the first leg of his middle eastern trip. an update on the winners of the nobel prize for medicine announced earlier today. rockefeller university in new york says the cowinner of this year's prize has died. he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer four years ago and died on september 30th, just three days before the announcement. the nobel prizes are typically not given out posthumously. the nobel committee did not know he was dead when they chose him as the winner and looking through their regulations. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> for the first time, americans will have access to activity even if there are natural disasters through a satellite network. >> the head of lightsquared on

his company's efforts to build a wireless network and concerns that it may effect gps equipment. "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> the house will consider is spending bill to keep the government open through mid- november and the senate is proposing a bill dealing with the chinese currency. watch live coverage on the c- span and the senate on c-span2. use our comprehensive resource on c-span with the congressional chronicle, including video of every house and senate hearing, committee meetings, minutes, and more. c-span networks created by cable and provided as a public service. host: ladonna pavetti with the

the center of budget policy and priorities. we have a segment we are doing every monday this time on "washington journal" looking at the way your money is spent come a chance free to look at what better programs cost and also what they do. today, and we are talking about the way that welfare was fundamentally changed 15 years ago. the creation of the temporary assistance for in needy families. tell us about that transition. guest: it was called the aid for families to dependent children first. that provide cash assistance to families who were unable to work for various reasons, and there's a feeling that there was a need to change that program and wanted to change it in other ways. one was to control costs and the other was to have it shifting to be a much more temporary assistance program and also to

focus. it is a block grant to states in the amount of $16.50 billion from 0.5% of the federal budget, and states can use that, and a very small percentage is used to provide cash to families. host: let's go back to how president clinton was talking about how this plan would change welfare. >> later this year, we will offer a plan to end welfare as we know it. i have worked on this issue for the better part of a decade. i know from personal conversations with many people that no one wants to change the welfare system as badly as those who are trapped in it. [applause] i want to offer the people on welfare the education, the training, the health care, the

child care they need to get on their feet, but after two years, they must go back to work, and private businesses as possible, but we have to end welfare as a way of life. [applause] host: president clinton in february 1993 at his state of the union address. as welfare ended as it was known back then? guest: it is a very different program. a lot of the things he could at outlined about what way we wanted to go is where we ended up, but it is a different program and it is in the temporary. it does serve many more purposes than it did when it was originally changed to a block grant. host: let's look at some of those purposes. assisting in-home child care, promoting job preparation, preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and encouraging two

parent families. guest: the biggest focus has been on work. when you walk into a welfare office to get assistance, and this can be any office anywhere, it is pretty much the same, the first thing you're required to do is to go through an assessment figure out what your needs are, and in your arm immediately placed in a program to start looking for work. stunt -- some people are interested in training to get better jobs. that really was immediately trying to get into the labour market. host: tanf, or temporary assistance for needy families, is what we are talking about. they are all emergence your contingency funds. the states get the money and it is up to them to decide how to follow some of these guidelines

in getting people back to work it, encouraging a two parent family. how does this differ from state to state? much: there is not as variation state to state, but there is a significant variation in families actually receiving assistance and what they use funding for. there are some states that really have used a lot of their block grant money for child care and others have a very large share the goes to child welfare systems. it really is different from state to state. part of we are seeing in the recession is that there has been a huge variation across the state of whether or not it has been responsive to the states and the block grants have not functioned well in keeping this as a counter-cyclical program to respond to increased needs. host: let's go to the phones. turn down your television, if

you can. caller: where is the mute on this? i am and 80-year-old woman who lives in the country in florida. when i was a kid people that did not have an education pick oranges, gathered fruit, and they took their kids with them to the fields. kids played around and had fun. my parents were migrants at one time. they went to sarasota to get a salary. they went to michigan, new york. host: what does this mean to you?

caller: if we would have never set up a welfare state, we would not have the problems we are in right now. we would have had people to gather our fruit and vegetables, working in our meat factories. my mother worked in a meat factory. my mother had an eighth grade education and my father had a fourth grade education. guest: to put this in perspective, we are in an economy with an on climate rate -- an unemployment rate of 9.1% and of evidence that shows people are trying desperately to work and are unable to find employment. we have a different set of rules now about not being able to go to work so we need to provide child care because sometimes it is not available.

sometimes we need extra money to create subsidized jobs. illinois crated a subsidized program and and that placing 35,000 people. they had no trouble getting people to take those jobs. some of it is a misnomer that people will not take the jobs. some people do not have the education or skills that people are looking for and we need to do more to make sure that people are linked up with what is together and we also need to create a stronger economy. host: offer of reuters, --

if people cannot get jobs, what are the penalties? what the repercussions? guest: there are repercussions for individual families and states. what happens is that families do not participate in a required activity, most often they lose their cash assistance as they are ineligible to participate. states are required to meet a work-participation rate than they can do that in a number of ways, but if they do not meet that, they cannot lose a portion of their block grant. host: an applicant in new york city must attend 95 days of a 9:00-5:00 -- 45 days of a job

search workshop. this ignores the chaotic reality of being a single mother in a financial crisis. guest: that is because of the work participation rate. they have to document every hour, so they have a very onerous requirement of documenting our by our it to encourage the states to create particular activities which may not be the best fit for what people need. their report that their staff is just as disillusioned as their recipients because they know that they cannot provide the help that they cannot meet. host: ladonna pavetti is our guest. next caller from illinois. good morning. caller: how are you doing this morning? i have often seen a pattern in chicago that was disastrous.

they could barely get through elementary school, they would stay a couple of years in high school, maybe they would drop out and they would move on to cook county jail. my question is have you done any studies in terms of the relationship between this new welfare program where people literally cannot get into the door for years and years and there is a limited amount of time? what is the relationship between the new program and a real party nationally and crime? i wonder what drives the crime rate in urban areas. i want to make a comment about the lady who just called. if she thinks this is a welfare state, she should try if you real welfare states. it depends on where you live geographically. personally, i do not think this

is a welfare state. i appreciate, and have a good day. guest: we do not have studies that look at crime, but we do have studies to look at kids who grow up around crime. as their income goes down, the chance of them failing in school is greater. what we want to do is minimize those disruptions and maximize the amount of income that i have. there's not only the focus on trying to provide child care, but also to focus on early childhood education so that we can really and those failures from early on. that is really geared towards making sure the kids have a great start in life and being able to have the best path forward. we have a lot of work to do their and a lot of what has happened with tanf means a very low, and stable income.

host: was to get the funding for 2011. state family assistance grants, $16.50 billion. the contingency fund, $334 million. marriage/father had grants $150 million. these numbers are forom hhs. let's talk about the funding for this program. house republicans quietly passed a bill that extended an unprecedented cut for a welfare program and even those who oppose the change did not stop them. guest: for fiscal year 2012, we just had an extension of the program for three months, so it will continue for three months. host: in the house passed that? guest: the house and senate have. it is heading to become law. the block grant was funded at

its current level in there has always been two separate money is, one called the supplemental grant when this was created to adjust to what was perceived in equity that when you get a block grant you're getting what you were spending previously. then you can actually equalize and the money goes to these very poor states. this year, about funding was not there. there are 17 states that have gotten the money in the past that will not getting it and they are the states where we have the highest level of poverty, the highest levels of deep poverty, and then some population growth state. those states have had for 15 years. there's also the contingency fund which is designed to help states during hard economic times. that has a very complicated design and most of those 17

states do not qualify under the current rules so they will not be able to make that up in the contingency fund. host: lafayette, ga., on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i will try to keep it short. we could employ a lot of the welfare people by teaching them [inaudible] they cannot give it to them so they are on the welfare program. the whole thing is education. this is not what i'm concerned about. nobody can get hired. we are in the 21st century today and we cannot work on the mom-and-pop system anymore.

it is high time that everyone gets involved in jobs because they are out there when you look hard enough and are educated enough. can you answer about the abuse of the parents were the father is not reachable or cannot be found. i think he can be found, and take the money out of his paycheck to support his family because this has to stop. what do you think about that? guest: there were several changes made not only a to the tanf program, but also changes to the child support program to really build up system so that absent parents are contributing as well as the custodial parents. i think we really do need to a knowledge that there is a message. education is a problem. one thing we did when we created tanf was we put very

difficult constraints on people when we did not allow them to improve their education, and i think we need to rethink that some people do have better skills. it is very difficult for people who do not have skilled education experience to compete when there are some people looking for work. host: why the emphasis on out- of-wedlock pregnancy? guest: it was when welfare was created to try and stop the families on tanf that were single families and try to do something to help stabilize families to help reduce the number of children born out of wedlock. host: republican from idaho. good morning. caller: i keep hearing that the government's budget is because of the war, yet study after study shows that 80% of the

central government budget are poor feel-good programs. when people go on welfare, they get lazy. studies show that generation after generation of the same family are on welfare. where do hospitals recoup their money from low-income people? after charging insurance companies twice for the person with an assurance unable to recoup the money. then you get all of these millions of millions of people like mexicans and stuff. thank you. guest: the amount of money that goes into the programs from the federal budget is quite small. it is only 14%. tanf is half of 1% and is tiny.

it is not a huge amount of money. really, what we need, what we have seen over the years is that there is a huge turnover in the program, so families to stay on it for long periods of time is very small. there is a federal time limit and we have very few people who hit those time limits. it has been 15 years. the majority of people are coming on to assistance because the average short-term need because they have lost their jobs because it ended or have had some kind of medical issue. it is a safety net. it is a program that really helps people during times of need. it is important for our kids and important for families to be able to know that there's something that help them when the labor market fails. host: ladonna pavetti is at the

center for budget and policy priorities. we're talking what the temporary assistance for needy families, or tanf. let's look at the numbers. in 1997, 10.3 million. in 2011, only 4.4 million, as of march 2011. a big difference in numbers. how come? guest: we've seen a huge declines in the number of people receiving tanf. unfortunately it is not because there are fewer people in need. we have a lot of people in need not served by the program. the work participation requirements, and others, there are a group of families that are unable to meet those requirements, such families in need and not being served. we have the ratio of tanf to poverty. of those in poverty, how many

are being served by tanf? it was 57% in 1997 and now it is 27%. there are some states for that number is as low as 4%. it is failing in its role as a safety net. part of this is that we really have not been able to have a work based system and a safety net. what really need to think about is how we can get that corrected. host: independent caller from libby, oregon. good morning. go-ahead. caller: the food stamps, is that part of the tanf? guest: it is a separate program and federal run. caller: think you for that. whenever the congress creates a

lot, like the dodd-frank, and with the welfare programs, you said it was reduced from 10.3 million up 4.4 million now. is this because congress has cut the funding for your program? guest: in tanf, it is not because funding was cut. it was a block grant and set at a certain level and has been funded at the same level since 1996. with tanf, when it was created we had a booming economy and there was a focus on work and a lot of people did find work. when it plummeted, they had money to shift to other places, so they used it for child care, child welfare, all of these other programs that serve all marble families. once the need increased, they

really could not reclaim those resources for the purpose it was intended. the money is just being spent in different ways than it was in 1996. host: michelle from st. louis on the democratic line. caller: hello. i was wondering because there has been a big problem with federal funding, as far as the welfare programs are concerned. i know this because i have fallen into this because my job has moved me back to part-time which means i am no longer eligible for insurance which means i'm a monster able to provide for my family because i am a single -- i am no longer able to provide for my family because i am a single parent and i need help. as far as child support those, the amount of money that i get paramount is ridiculous because

i do not get enough to really help out with my children. i am dealing with that, but i'm still trying to look for another full-time job. when i am told that i cannot take off of work because i have forit in an office waiting a case worker eight hours but they cannot see me, i have done lost a day of work. what job is going to continue to hire me if i to sit in a welfare office two-three days a week and a stop seeing people at 1:00 p.m. what am i to do with that? guest: you point out an important issue that we need to deal with. one of the focuses of doing the welfare of each was to move it to a work-based program, but we have not moved a completely yet. people cannot visit offices

during those hours. there are things going on in some states where there is a much more going on with automation that allows people to not wait in lines as long and those are really important changes that we need to support. we need to support people like yourself. there is an and knowledge that the people are really working and they need more help. how do we ship the system that is focusing much more on that people are working, need to work more, and that requires a different set up requirements, a different set of help for people. and we are not there yet. i would hope that we could really have a discussion about the evidence that shows that there are a lot of people that have not been connected to the labor markets or are like yourself and need more hours of work. how can we do a better job of

helping those families? host: she spoke about working part time. does that make her an ideal candidate for a program like this? whenthat hurt or help hearr she applies for this program? guest: it depends. the work requirement is that people need to work 30 hours per week. as long as she is working 30 hours, it is a huge benefit to restate, because someone working that many hours helps them to meet the work his patient rate. if she is not, but it does not help the state at all. it really does depend on the state whether or not how much they want to help the individuals that are working. as we pointed out, there are constraints that the hours are usually 9:00-5:00. the other constraints, like in

new york city, is you have to sit in this program for 45 days. michelle cannot do that because she is already working. host: she would have to quit her part-time job, which would defeat the purpose. ladonna pavetti, what do you see as the future? congress is looking at funding at a lower level. you have talked about some of the plaza as you see them. where do we go from here? -- it be a topic of some of the flaws. guest: one of the things we have to do is we need to rethink the contingency fund which was really designed to give help during hard economic times. there is the question that is where we are. what we want to do is take the money that is there, potentially add to that, and provide states

with more resources to do a better job of helping individuals during these hard economic times. the other thing i think we can do is to simplify the work requirement. we need to make a broader range of possibilities for people so people can take advantage of vindication. it is the best thing people can do when there are no jobs available so they are prepared when there are more jobs available, which is very difficult to do in the current environment. there is simplification, read thinking the contingency fund, and i think we need to think about how we measure success. we measure success in this very narrow measure of the participation rate. we need to think about are we creating opportunities for people and how successful we are being at that. we have now measure of success in this program about whether we are really serving people in need and we need to think about how we can do that better. host: in maryland, republican

caller. good morning. caller: i just wanted to make a statement that i have heard from my good friend of mine. she was a professor at a local college a few years ago. it seemed that the people that were given the scholarships or access to free college class'es also given $800 once they have started their costs -- their class for so-called spending money. once they got that money, many of them stopped going to cause and it just did not show up. she called whoever issued the start of money and said there was not a thing she could do about it. that is one area of fraud and i do not know if there's any way

that can be controlled. guest: in all of our programs, we want to make sure the money is going to the best purposes and meeting its intended goal. as you described, we need disorder rethink if that is the best way to meet those resources. -- we need to rethink if that is the best way. what are the best way to encourage people to stay in college and not just attend? every state is different. we are all on a learning curve. we have learned a lot in 16 years. we need to take what we have learned, the good and bad, and look at how we move forward to create a better program to create opportunities for even more people and make the best use of the limited resources that we have. host: ladonna pavetti is at the center of the budget and policy priorities. prior to that she was at the mathematics policy research from

the urban institute and was a welfare consultant for hhs and worked as a policy analyst at the d.c. commission for social services and was a social worker in chicago and in washington, d.c. she has a ph.d. from harvard. fort pierce, florida. good morning. caller: one of my questions is that i was ordered to pay child support and provide health insurance for my kids. i have already done that, but i think an incentive would be if the fathers could be given credit, like a tax refund, that would give them some incentive to pay child support. they cannot claim in their filing and the mother does not

have to clamp the extra money. -- claim the extra money. host: so tax refund for fathers to provide child support. guest: we also learned a lot over the last 16 years about child support. we need to think about what we have done, what we have learned, and what we can do to make things better. i do not know the details of how child-support works, so i cannot comment on the details. one of the things we often fail to do is when we are authorizing programs, we do not do as good a job we can at what looking at what we have learned. it happens with welfare reform is we have some people who claim an issue of success. you can only say that if you look up to the first five years. we need to let that the whole 15 years of what we have learned and we need to do the same thing

with child support and see where we can make improvements. host: denver, colorado, on the independent line. welcome. caller: my name is suzanne. host: from denver? go ahead. caller: i just have a quick question. with unemployment as high as it is, why did they not consider some volunteer work? if a lot of these mothers could volunteer in their children's schools, there could be a mutual benefit and they could apply that to if there were working. the other reason i called was to ask a question. did we shipped a lot of this to the federal government?

a lot of people, when they get off welfare, they will go on social security or disability for numerous reasons, learning, disabled, whenever. guest: there are states that do work experience and it is an option that they can use. the problem is that tanf benefits are so low amount between $170.400 $20. if you put someone in work experience, you have to provide child care. often it is when these kids are young, so there's a cost issue there. states have never done as much work experience for community service as people think they should, but a lot of that has to do with cost. it has to do with places that will provide supervision so it

is a good experience. i forgot the other part of your question. host: it may come back to me. we talked about volunteering and it has eluded me as well. it may come back to me in a moment. what is the basic record on this program about getting people back to work? what is the success rate like? guest: what we saw happen, and we often look at the employment rate for single mothers with lower education, because that is a lot of the ends up on tanf. employment rates started to rise before tanf was created and was attributed to a stronger economy, it changes in medicaid that allowed them to have health insurance for their kids, and the earned income tax credit. when welfare reform started, the

trajectory continue to increase through 2000. then we started to see a decline. where at the same level of employment as 1996, so those early gains have been lost. what is critical for success is a strong economy. people indicated they were willing to work and they took jobs. now the job just are not there, so we see lower levels of employment. when people go in, it is very much just how it was it, but it is harder to finding a. host: ladonna pavetti, thank you so much. that is it for "washington journal" today. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the house and senate are in later today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we began our live programming at 1:00 eastern with a speech by documentarian ken burns. he is at the national press club. discussing his latest project, a pbs series called "prohibition." he is also expected to talk about how prohibition became a social experiment for legislating social behavior and how it relates to today's political discourse. you can watch that today at 1:00 eastern. eastern. we will also