coming up in 45 minutes, judd gregg will talk about congressional efforts to cut the deficit and simplify the tax code. then, a discussion with leo hendry. later, jack buckley, of the national center for statistics to and just, to talk about how u.s. students are doing in math and reading. ♪ host: said it has been about one week since bank of america announced new bank fees for debit card holders. in that time, protests have been heard from the floor. this morning, we want to hear from you. get your reaction to bank fees and whether or not you think they are fair. phone numbers are on the screen.

if you are a republican, for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-624-1111. for independents, 202-624-0760. please allow 30 days between your calls. you can contact us electronically as well. e-mail us batboy twitter.com/c- spanwj -- e-mail us at twitter.com/c-spanwj, or you can -- e-mail us at journal@c- span.org, send us a twitter at twitter.com/c-spanwj, or post to our facebook page. mr. constantine is the author of open quote price list: bringing

down the visa and mastercard cartel." bank of america said recently that they would charge $5 a month for the use of debit cards. they argued they were forced to make that change because of regulations that alter the economics of the card. other banks agreed. jamie time and put the effect of the regulation this way. if you are a restaurant that cannot charge for the soda, you will charge more for the burger. merely an attempt to rationalize and ought to stay one of the largest illegal transfers of wealth from consumers to banks in american history. deborah carr is developed by banks for paper checks. the bank saves money.

in the 1980's, these a calculated the savings --

>> "usa today," the lead editorial, "what about capitalism do they not get"?

host: we want to get your reaction to bank fees this morning. john, good morning. caller: that probably should not

be allowed to do that. that is the action of a monopoly. lotteries and casinos are money drains on the society. we need to eliminate them in order to keep going. thank you. >> pa., gregory, you are on "washington journal." >> i think that those fees are really unnecessary. considering how much money we have put into these banks, the government should have a say in what they're doing. it is not just an option to leave the bank. >> why not? >> too many people leave? we have a problem with that bank again. it is failing because the ceo is a bonehead. so, we have to tell them, we

cannot do this. they need bank of america. >> helen, good morning. >> i have been a customer with bank of america for 25 years. i banked with them because they are very convenient and i have direct deposit from my employer. i do not want to be messing around with my paycheck. but i have been nickeled and a dime to for 25 years. this is the last straw. finally saying -- enough, you cannot take more from us. when i got the mortgage, a loan officer made a point of deducting it directly from a checking account. i said that that is no problem, by the first for the fifth. she said she did do it by the tent.

i have looked at my mortgage statement -- they were charging $40 in late fees every month because they automatically detected because of earlier. it is these little things, the individual and the public. this, we cannot deal with more deals from the banks. >> are you going to be switching your bank? >> my employer laid off a lot of staff that does the paper work, so to say? i am afraid that if i switched, it would mess up my direct deposit. i need my paycheck. >> a couple -- host: a couple of facebook comments. this one from jim --

white this is from arnold -- -- host: this is from arnold -- host: thomas -- host: the next call comes from mississippi. caller: good morning. i love c-span. i think it is ridiculous that the banks are now charging the poor $5. we bailed them out one time. they have taken our money and put it somewhere to gain interest. they made a bad investment and we have to bail them out again.

it is ridiculous. they are not loaning money to people who are trying to keep america afloat by keeping them in houses. george bush took us to war and put us in that period when he came into office, we had a surplus of money. we do not miss you. now you are not doing anything to help us out. host: this, from politico --

host: here is harry reid from last night. >> under this procedure that has recently been adopted in this instance, there is no limit to how many -- can be filed. this has to come to an end. this is not a way to legislate. that is why i made the motion to overrule the chair.

host: the senate voted along party lines to change the testament. under normal procedure, 50 senators agreed to end this filibuster. each side agreed on a unanimous defense to schedule a vote, requiring the support of 67 senators to succeed. under this procedure, senators can no longer move to break the rules at a time when frustration is at an all-time high. there is a reaction from which mcconnell -- "we are fundamentally turning the senate into the house," when he

referred to the other bodies rule. this article is from "politico." idaho, republican line, the morning. caller: my family and i moved here because we were not able to find employment in another state. i noticed that one of the was bank of america. it would take it to the bank that the company had written it from. if you were not a member of the bank, they would want to charge fees. bank of america was worse than

other banks. i am completely against the banks and their ridiculous fees. it is not smart, business-wise, i think. are they charging the customers $5 every time the use an atm? that makes it even worse. host: george, a democrat, oklahoma. caller: a wanted to make a comment that it is ridiculous to charge kephart -- $5 fee. bank of america had never charged a fee before. as i understand it, if you do not use your debit card, if you

get cash for whenever you need it for, there will love be a charge? is that my understanding? host: i do not want to answer that question. on the generic level? caller: no. host: thank you for calling in this morning. this twitter message -- host: this comment from our facebook page -- host: prince george's county, good morning. caller: good morning.

host: what do you think? caller: this is so that they can disclose to all the people about obama. the police have cameras everywhere. paying $5 for a debit card? [unintelligible] host: thank you for calling in. september jobs figures released this morning. the bureau of labor statistics releases its current performance, providing a snapshot of the u.s. labor market. last month at stay the same period in the previous month,

9.1%, the report was going to be released. as soon as we get it, it o'clock 30. the jobs report might clarify economic outlook between financial markets and the more promising economic indicators.

host: back to your calls on bank fees from sullivan, maine. john, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to draw the comparison between the bank fees and government. there is a real similarity that would approve or disapprove of them depending on the perceived value for money spent.

i can see how the banks have run us into the debt and we can see how the u.s. government has not ascended that and wants us to pay the $5 bank free to them. but perception is that we are not getting full value from either of these entities. thank you. host: this is from " new york post -- "the new york post."

host: in the article right next to it -- host: finally, this article from "the new york post."

host: backed your calls on bank fees. fort pierce, republican line. caller: it is the point where corporate america is the first one that the welfare office. over and over, it was years in years ago. they do not charge me anything for, over the years. being charged for bank of america to cash my employee checks? that is ridiculous.

if enough people leave the bank, it will get their attention. host: this twitter message -- host: the next call from bank backs -- on bank fees come from albany, new york. caller: as a young man, i dug myself into a huge hole, and i have to tell you, bankamerica was right there and kept handing me the shovel. i think the banks prey on the young, the inexperienced. the wealth transfer in this company -- this country has been horrible.

that is what i have to say, telling my own experience. host: mark, republican line. we are talking about bank fees. but you think? caller: -- what do you think? caller: banks are businesses. you do not have to like it. at the same time, the fees that we have are from dick durbin. where are you? there has got to be a sense of coming between those. host: this is from the c-span website.

the republican congressional leadership is gathering in washington. host: by the way, the value voters summit will be live, online, and live on c-span, because the house is in session.

from "politico, closed but this morning, from nancy pelosi -- host: are these bank fees faire?

tom, ohio. caller: it does not sound fair, but it millions of dollars for year? these big banks for the need to cut this out. host: annandale, virginia. antony, republican line. caller: my total income is a small government disability check. i have been using an atm with no fee for a long time. i really appreciate it. i have seen people on television that make a normal income complaining about this. there are other options that you can do. it might take an afternoon for you to accomplish.

host: john, a democrat, good morning to you. caller: the bank tanks your money, then charges to give it back to you? if you put up money in the bank, they will not charge you. obama took over the government, us 700,000 jobs per month, letting the banks out. it still was not useful. the banks take your money and charge you for it. host: that you for calling in this morning. a couple of facebook comments.

charles makes this comment -- host: paul martin has this comment -- host: john, independent, detroit. you are on "washington journal." caller: i think that they should be able to charge what they want. americans can take action instead of being complacent. if we do not like their fees, we can go elsewhere. host: this is from "of the

hill," newspaper this morning. host: c-span coverage that hearing. from cnbc, "al i would fix the economy," from jack welch.

host: leo hendry, they are promoting higher taxes for wealthy americans. republican, atlanta. are the bank fees fair?

caller: i do not think that the right question is -- are they fair. when our economy is in such a difficult time right now, as a new mother and business owner, right now of course it would be great to raise the prices. it would be very easy for us to go to our clients and say -- we need to raise our prices. however, we know that this is not the opportune time to do so. making a good name for our business, there are hard times to come. other problems with privately- owned can -- companies, fees going up, it is not the opportune time to do that.

if you look for round, you can notice that everything is going up. the only thing going down is very unhealthy food. not only is everything going up, but they are eating dollars. it does not do anything for your well-being. host: how is your landscaping business doing? caller: doing well. your growth may not be as great as you would like it to be. when times are difficult, you kind of just go with the flow, realizing you want to keep everyone happy.

host: thank you for calling in this morning. this is from linda watson -- hillary story comments -- host: would be, litchfield park, arizona. you are on c-span. caller: in colorado, a transfer from a bank -- i transferred from another bank. i was told that they make their money off of interest. but the woman just said, yes, i'd go with the credit union.

these banks are not community minded, which is what the community reinvestment act is all about. keeping the money in the community where the deposits are made. host: that was worthy, arizona. this advertisement appeared this morning in "the washington post." host: tonight our program features charles evans hughes. former governor of new york, republican candidate and nominee for president in 1916 against woodrow wilson. that is tonight, from the

supreme court at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. you can go to c-span.org /contenders if you want to find out more about who was on their. we will put the website up on the screen for you. john, what you think? caller: has anyone seen the retailers say -- here is your money back? put into the retailers, this is no benefit to the public.

this is typical of the legislation with a pass it first and read it later. no one wants to see them laying off 50,000 people. the revenues are now $6 billion. that is all that i have to say about that. host: this twitter message -- a is from "the washington post."

pos

host: francis, what do you think about a bank fees? caller: calling in from indiana. host: i saw that, and i thought that might be wrong. caller: that is ok. listen, i want to tell you something. community banks, 8500 of us did not do this greed. the credit unions did not do this greed. so, in charge $1.50 per month on my account to use these banks on the corner that are 2 miles from me. take your money out of those big

banks and put them in the community banks. they have their rates raised 1200% to pay off these people that they sold their money to. out here they had to sell to someone that those nails. community banks suffered because of these stupid, agreed banks, giving it to the people. take your money from the big banks, put it in the little banks. host: to you think that that is a fair amount? caller: of course. they make interest well your money sits there. i drive a lincoln. i keep foregoing. usa. the banks. get rid of these greedy sons of guns.

host: good to hear from you. ryan, what do you think about bank fees? caller: i think they are horrible. i will tell you, they just nickel and dime you to death. my savings account charges me $10 just to transfer my own money from my overdraft into a checking account. that has gotten out of hand. what the banks did, it is the same thing that the credit card companies did. once that regulation was passed, companies said they needed so much to alter their software and change their algorithms, so on and so forth. during that time, credit card

companies what about increasing freak -- fees. dodd-frank did the same thing. barney frank came back and try to figure out how to escalate this. host: bring this to a conclusion. caller: the gentleman that spoke before, saying that you could take your money elsewhere [unintelligible] host: thank you for calling. this is from open quote the washington times."

host: that public hearing will be live today at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 2. jessica makes a comment -- host: in "the hill," this morning --

host: this is from the associated press.

host: again, this is an associated press article. this is from london, "the telegraph." "the world facing worst financial crisis in history." host: if you are interested, you can go to their web site. are these new bank fees fair? larry, hello. caller: how are you this morning? host: just fine. caller: i was calling about the fact that banks are making money.

every time you make a deposit into that bank, it goes over nine times. his months sends a check every month -- as banks and they check every month and their assets grow $9,000 over $1,000. most people in america do not realize this. another comment i would like to make -- when is obama going to announce the [unintelligible] act that should deal with that the economy right now? host: the cover of "business week," "steve jobs 1955-2011."

host: walter isaacson -- has written other books, including one on einstein. one more article that we want to show you -- basically, three articles to bring to your attention. a law professor and civil-rights advocate dies at the age of 83

at harvard. anita hill is in washington, promoting her new book. it is not about the hearings from 20 years ago. but it is the anniversary of those hearings. this is in "the washington post," in case you are interested. c-span 3 will be going over those stories this weekend. you can go to c-span.org, for all of our different websites, and you confined american history tv, in case you are interested in watching some of that this weekend. kenneth dolberg, finance chair for the reelect president nixon campaign, he was the one that

had his name on the check, if you know anything about this story. it was the first real connection between watergate and the nixon campaign, finding the check with his name on it. he has died, in minnesota. coming up in 45 minutes, he is one of the founders of [unintelligible] millionaires. we will let you talk to him about the millionaires' tax and if he thinks it is a good idea. but coming up, a longtime republican senator from new hampshire, judd gregg will be joining us in just a minute. ♪ >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a two term governor of new york, a lawyer, and

professor. his impact on political history remained, ultimately serving as chief justice of the u.s.. one of the 14 men featured in the new weekly series, "of the contenders." tonight, 8:00 p.m. eastern. we have a special web site for the series, c-span.org /contenders. >> during deliberations, the only people in the supreme court conference room on the nine justices. who gets the door? >> i was paying close attention, as i remember it. bill rehnquist, a right answer the door. i learn from that that one of

the most important jobs as a junior justice is to remember that you are a doorman. >> "5 chiefs," the new memoir from john paul stevens. >> if you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you are crazy. every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. every president for life has a bill of rights. the bill of rights of the former evil empire was much better than ours. literally. guaranteeing freedom of speech and the press? they guaranteed freedom of protests, street demonstrations, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government called to account. wonderful stuff. of course, just words on paper. >> c-span, antonin scalia and

stephen brier, a wide ranging series of questions, including the role of judges. watch the rest of the discussion, at the c-span video library. washington, your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen, a former washington -- new hampshire senator judd gregg. joining us from new hampshire. here to talk to us about the tax reform issues and being chairman of the senate budget committee for a time. if we could start with the super-committee that is still meeting? in a recent article, in a "the

hill," i want to take advantage of what you said. also, could you give us a perspective, now that you have been out of the purse -- out the senate for a while? this debate about tax increases on the rich, is that a fair way to look at this debate? >> id is not. i think your listener should appreciate just how significant this is. never before has an entity been created like this. we are a checks and balances government. the senate is, of course, the ultimate checks and balances situation.

protecting the minority from the abuses of the majority. this super-committee takes us to a parliamentary form of government. 12 people. six republicans, six democrats. and a majority can vote on the bill. totals jurisdiction over the issue. then it goes to the floor of the senate and house and it must be voted on. and it cannot be amended. basically, you have the ability to produce something significant to get our fiscal house in order. how should it be framed? medicare or tax on the rich. the simple fact is that what -- " we have as a government is having more than what we can afford to spend. it has taken the government the last two years, relative to gdp,

now the government is up to 22.5% gdp. a huge explosion in the size of the government. basically, we have to slow down the rate of growth, bringing it to some point where we can afford it. i worked on the simpson bowls commission. it was led by simpson and bowls, superb people. we agree that it would be around 23.3% of gdp. you do have to reduce entitlement spending. most of it is in medicare. medicare alone has $65 trillion in unfunded liability.

$65 trillion more than we know we are going to get it from. it is not just medicare spending. you will have to get more revenues. you do not get that by raising rates on rich people, like the president wants to do. you will get nowhere near the amount of revenues that you want. avoiding taxes, instead of getting more jobs as a result, you do it along the lines of some symbols. -- since and bowls -- you dramatically reduce the rates. 9% for low income people. 15% for middle-income people. the revenue that that proposal supposes doing, by eliminating exemptions, exceeded revenue by

$100 million per year, so, it can be done, it just takes more courage. we are going to have a fiscal crisis pretty soon. a big one. unless we get our fiscal house in order. the super-committee has the power to do that. there are original charges a meaningless charge. $1 trillion over 10 years is not to get to get the house in order. they can do it bite adjustment entitlement account. >> you know the players on the committee. and you know the senate. guest: there are two interesting facts.

pundits from washington, people put on this committee, going across the aisle without being traditionally bipartisan, that is true in a historical context, but there are some very smart, very capable people. this is a very church hill-like moment. they can put the company back on a path to fiscal responsibility. i know that people like john kerry tried to talk publicly about going to the big numbers. i think that there are enough people on that group that want to get there. i think that the leadership is smart enough to realize that they should get there. i hope it will happen. second, the fact that if they do actually put forward a proposal that gets to the bigger number and take some major entitlements, they have to do

both of those things. because they have the confidence of the base on the left and the right, they will be successful. that will be very good. like sending nixon to china. people saying that they can do that because they have the confidence. >> what are the chances of overall tax reform -- host: what are the chances of overall tax reform? guest: very good. i proposed it in a major tax reform bill about one year ago. widening growth, i said we need a signal. that basically became the template for the memo off of which simpson bowls -- why did both sides like tax reform?

progressives and liberals like it because they look at the deductions and exemptions to special interests. conservatives like it because they want to take the rates way down, people investing for the sake of jobs rather than avoiding taxes. both sides like it because it means simplification. you have max baucus on finance. he's interested in this issue and a talented senator. i think the cards are there to do major tax reform. host: you can talk to former senator judd gregg. 202-737-0001 for democrats.

202-737-0002 for republicans. 202-628-0205 for independents. if we get your comment on this video from president obama yesterday. >> one of the most important things we can do is to cut taxes. the jobs bill would cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in america. a small business owner that raises wages, you would get another tax cut. if you hire a veteran, you would get a tax cuts. one company is considering hiring more. host: senator gregg. guest: i think reducing the burden of taxation is a good idea.

i think he should do this with a comprehensive tax bill. this is one of the problems we have had here. we have set up exemptions and deductions. what happens is you end up with things like solyndra. because of the tax breaks and subsidies, you have a company wasting $500 million of american tax dollars. i would rather seek a comprehensive tax reform than just a bunch of little things here and there. i don't think that's a good way to govern and an efficient way to use our tax law. host: joining us is judd gregg. violent, new jersey -- vineland.

caller: i am a mother, a wife, a taxpayer, and a democrat. i think -- a couple of weeks ago when the president spoke to congress and the united states forever by to come together to work on some kind of plan to get people back to work is very important. from my point of view and the way i'm seeing in it, i kind of honestly believe what the president says. the republicans are sitting on their hands. we cannot wait -- is about 13 months before the next election. people out there are out of work. i believe that they are using this as a way of using a to work

their campaign trail as far as the republicans, to get into office and to vote. it is not fair for the poorest people in america, the working class. there is now working class and more. guest: there is a lot of politics going around. the president is running for reelection. the public is running against him and members of congress are running for reelection. some of the actions that should be taken are for the purpose of sending a message. look at what the senate -- look at what happened in the senate last night. he is now the president of blame and divide, as far as i can tell.

this economy is not moving forward because people are worried. people could do the investing and small businesses, they are concerned about expanding and investing and creating more jobs. they don't know what their tax burden is going to be. they see a massive expansion. they see the government borrowing at rates at numbers they cannot afford to pay back. that will cost them to us to pay more for their borrowing. people are worried about the direction of this country's fiscal policy. if the super committee came back and said we have a plan that is specific and real that reduces the deficit over 10 years by a $3 trillion, you would see the economy explode. people would have confidence in

the future. they are taking this action. you would see great action. i think the american people are ready to be creative and use that unique entrepreneurship and to make us grow and to create jobs. it's being held back by the certainty of politics on taxes, regulation, and debt. host: chris from illinois. caller: thank you for your service. i have a big problem with any republican that signed grover norquist's pledge by not to raise taxes by even one dime. guest: i do not think grover norquist has been an instructive voice. people on the left are equally destructive.

social security is not allowed to address the fundamental issues of how to save it. there are folks on both sides of the aisle that to not appear to be interested in resolving our fiscal problems but to raise money for their own agendas. those folks are not credible players as far as i'm concerned and i do not listen to them. host: we have a tweet -- guest: i disagree with him on that. defining "super committee." the congress has the final say. the congress is part of the

process. the regular order doesn't work on these big issues. we know that. we have tried that before. people come along and poison the well before you can get the bill on to the floor of the senate or the house. that is why it doesn't work. this is set up by the congress. the congress authorizes the stature art event. -- the statuary event. both sides are on the committee. a more accurate description would be a super conference. congress has the right to set up this committee. is the committee going to use the extraordinary opportunity it has been given to straighten out

our fiscal house, or make a major step so that this country can feel like it's back on the road to fiscal responsibility? the american people are upset and they have a right to be upset. we're going to double the debt and then we will triple the debt. our children will inherit a country that is bankrupt. this will take us longer than greece. you cannot run up all these deficits and debt that we're running up and expect to maintain our standard of 11 and expect to be a strong nation. this committee has the chance to step up and change that course. otherwise we'll have a serious problem. host: sheila from massachusetts. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i feel super committee has to much power deciding what will be cut. he entered the question pretty well. i'm wondering what will happen when obama's health care ads 80 million people more to medicaid. thank you for taking my call. guest: there are two things driving the massive expansion. one is obama's proposal on health care which will increase the spending by $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years and it will add a huge number of people.

the second thing driving this huge fiscal imbalance we're confronting is the demographic shift. the baby boom generation is going into retirement and we're going from 35 million retire .illiopeople to 70 million some people will not be able to retire because of their fiscal situation. all of our entitlement programs which benefit retired people -- medicare, social security, medicaid -- were conceived of as pyramids. there were 16 people paying into social security for every one person taking now. today, two people are paying in forever one person taking up. in 2025, it will be one to one.

the numbers do not work. these adjustments are not draconian. some people will not even feel them and they will be done in an orderly way. but you have to get started. if you wait for a crisis, people will feel it. if we act soon in a medicare reform and straight out social security so it is sovereign, that would be a huge plus and it would give people confidence in the future of our country. host: do you miss the senate? guest: i miss the people. i did not leave the senate as a cynical individual -. the minority is projected -- is

protected from the majority. anything can be debated. washington said it was the saucer into which the hot coffee is poured. i miss some of it public policy. i honestly don't miss the job. i was there for 18 years. kathy and i are enjoying doing other things and we like keeping our own schedule. i like harry reid. he is a friend. but did not like the schedule he kept. host: you are an adviser to goldman sachs. guest: i am teaching at dartmouth and i'm on a couple of boards. host: ben from new york city.

caller: good morning. i have two questions. the first question is on the super committee. how many people on the committee have signed on to grover norquist pledge of no taxes? if that is the case, the super committee is not really functionable. because these people, if they sign with grover, just like in germany with adolf hitler, if you did not sign on as it now sees sympathizer -- as a nazi sympathizer, you could be going to jail. whether or not a decision by the supreme court can be overturned. can a supreme court judge be

reprimanded or removed from the court for tax purposes or for errors that are as egregious as clarence thomas's. think i don't think -- i clarence thomas has a strong voice on the court and i don't think removing clarence thomas is any reason -- or any right to consider removing any of the justices as far as i know. they are committed people of high integrity with different philosophies who are doing the job of being the judges of the supreme court. you can remove a judge if a person creates a crime or is charged with a crime and is convicted, or i suspect for other reasons, which would be impeachable. but there are no judges that i know of that have fallen into

that category at this time. was one under consideration at the district court level. on the super committee, i am not sure if any of the members have signed any pledges whether it is on social security, medicare, or taxes. they are serving on this committee and they have the chance to do something big. i think you can reach tax reform without violating any pledges. this is misunderstood if it is viewed as being a pledge that would not allow us to go forward to something like the reagan- rostenkowski tax reform, which is what i was proposing. i don't think the two or even in conflict, should somebody have signed a pledge in that area.

host: if the committee comes back with a stalemate and the automatic cuts go into effect, what is the political results of that? guest: it will not be as bad as the economic results. i think a stomach by this committee would lead to an immediate downgrading of our debt by the two industries that of not downgraded us, moody's and finch. in my be disruptive to our economy, which is already -- the implications of them -- a stomach would be rather dramatic -- a stalemate would be rather dramatic. the frustration with spike up considerably if they do not meet the minimum goal. i think meeting the minimum goal should be easy and as a marginal

action on the part. i think you have to go with a bigger goal. if they reached the minimum goal, i think moody's and fitch would probably downgrade us as a result of that. if you look at the numbers and you the numbers $1.2 trillion, you are up to around $2.2 trillion, and that does not get our debt under control because we're talking about a factor of five over the next 10 years. it is now around 80% and 90%. that does not sell in the market and it does not work. those types of debt ratios lead

to an inability to pay your debts which leads to some kind of economic event, either major inflation or massive deflation in a recessionary event. host: what is your reaction to the occupied wall street movement? guest: i just find it to be a lot of folks who are very upset but are very misguided. economykes america's grade and has given us a unique edge is that we have individuals who are entrepreneurs. we have people that are willing to go out and take a risk. space-bar a restaurant or they start a company like apple or microsoft. people are taking economic activity and that translates into jobs. how do you take risk in an

economy? how do you build a business or open a restaurant proved to have to be able to have capital and credit available at a reasonable price. we have had a financial system that has allowed people to get capital and credit and the reasonable price if they are entrepreneurs. if you say all-- banks are bad, you don't know how this country works. people are sort of old school, a 1960's retreaded socialists. host: next call comes from florida, john on our republican line. caller: to live. i'm a big fan of yours, senator gregg.

i heard you earlier when an earlier caller talked about getting things going. you're pretty patient saying that there will not bring up the bills. one question for taxes. who is it that said that you don't have to pay fica over $90,002,000? if everybody had to pay the same amount for the fica we might help curb some of our problems. guest: that is a good question and goes back to help social security was founded. it was considered to be an insurance program and not an income transfer programs. you were supposed to pay enough over your working life to have invested in what amounted to an insurance policy which would pay

back when you stopped working and give you a retirement money. the's the theory behind fica. this is an insurance policy, not wealth redistribution plan. that is why there has been an upper limit of fica taxes. host: richmond, virginia. caller: good morning. thank you for your service to the country. before i do my question, i find it interesting as an independent so many attacks going against clarence thomas, whether satellite or overtly -- whether subtlely or overtly.

you have anita hill releasing a book and the trial being recorded again, people being able to hear reit. his name is cropping up again and again. as an independent, i find it hard to trust what any government official as saying. i realize that we do have to get our financial fiscal house in order. the entitlements and tax reform is paramount. i keep on looking at how we're spending the money, where we're spending the money. it cheaper for example -- who put the iou's in the social

security trust fund, and for what purpose? what are they doing/ host: thank you for your call. senator gregg. guest: i think the caller is expressing the frustration of all lot of americans. they are losing faith in their government. i guess the chickens are coming home to roost. there has been so little to address the core problems as a nation and a lot that's been done that has been harmful. it is hard to take seriously the president what he says he is for fiscal restraint and he offers plan after plan that increases the size of the government and the gross the government. -- and grows the government.

you could say the same if you are 8 democrat relative to republicans. there is a sense that the government is not doing very well by us and that is not good and that is not healthy. i hope that people -- everybody on the super committee has good intentions and i hope they will step up and start taking some action. you have a good working relationship in the senate right now. i do think the opportunity is there to get our house back in order and then people will have more confidence in our government going forward and the concerns expressed by the court abde.hopefully obe ade. host: this tweet for you,

senator. guest: simpson-bowles did a unique thing. they took a proposal and put it on steroids. they eliminated almost all the deductions and exemptions and then took the rates way down. they brought the corporate rate down to about 26%. i liked the idea. i think you take out as many deductions and exemptions as you can. there are some political ones that are hard to deal with such as the mortgage deduction and the charitable deduction. i think you'll have to tone them down. charitable becomes a big problem from the charitable

community. you have to adjust them some way. you can take the savings and using them to reduce rates. the tax law is simplified and everybody can understand it. the investment is not for the purpose of avoiding taxes but for the purpose of creating economic activity, which creates jobs. be the goals.ould i am fairly optimistic. both sides have something to win here. hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later. host: just a few minutes left with our guest. caller: good morning. i have two comments.

they are directed at the viewers. you commented on grover norquist and people like him do not have credibility in your eyes for various reasons. the vast majority of republicans in congress today have not indicated their agreement but have signed that pledge, which would indicate that they do not have credibility in your eyes. the second point, one of the things you stated a couple of times was an idea which is the idea that if the reduced tax rate, it increases the economy, increasing revenue for the government, which would decrease our deficit. if anyone takes that to its

logical conclusion, if we reduce the capital gains, it would s pur a huge economic growth but that would not increase money coming into the government. that's the goal. host: senator gregg. guest: i do not believe this tax pledge is in contradiction to major tax reform. i believe you can do a major tax reform and still comply with this tax reform. major tax reform is separate from this tax pledge which just deals with raising rates. the second issue -- what was the second issue? host: reducing the tax rate. guest: sorry.

if you were to take capital gains rate to zero, then is not that you would lose tax revenue. you would probably generate tax revenue. it would create jobs and taxable income that is not occurring because the economy would be expanding. the capital gains income would fall off to zero. you would be creating jobs. this would be significant. the argument that taking tax rates down doesn't generate more revenue is one which i have trouble agreeing with if the tax rates are set any reasonable level. we are not talking about eliminating taxes.

we're talking about having tax rates which energize more economic activity. from my standpoint, that's the way you should go. if you just raise rates, do think high income people do not have accounts, or teams of people who specialize in making sure they do not to pay taxes? of course they do. and so they are going to be investing for the purpose of avoiding taxes, which is not an efficient way to use money and causes the economy to grow much slowly. this idea that you can raise more revenues by raising rates is absurd.

the people who pay the taxes have the war fought to avoid the taxes by investing in things which are not taxable and using tax avoidance mechanisms which are legal. we have proven time and time again -- as you raise your rates, at some point you get to a level where people stop investing in a way that is taxable activity and start investing to avoid taxes, and you reduce economic activity as a result of that. john kennedy was the first guy to figure this out. he was one of the icons of the democratic party. that was followed by ronald reagan. we need to get rates down to people invest for the purpose of creating economic activity and jobs rather than for the purpose of avoiding taxes and credit class war for.

host: "the washington post" this morning, romney rising in the top of polls. you have not endorsed him yet this year, i do not believe. when is the new hampshire primaries are going to bay? e? guest: seven days before anyone else. we can call an election in about 48 hours. my guess is it'll be the second tuesday in january. we will not know until the secretary of state says. we have in a string election going on in our party with a huge variety of views.

i think mitt romney makes a lot of sense and he understands it is people, individuals call entrepreneurs, people willing to take risks and to create jobs. is not the government that creates jobs. that's the philosophy we have to run on. we need fiscal responsibility. that will be the rich you -- that will be the issue. jobs, spending, excessive deficits, and excessive debt that has been added by this administration. republicans need a program that enters all four of them. host: judd gregg served as a republican senator from new hampshire. thank you for joining us from manchester this morning. guest: have a great day.

host: up next, a discussion on raising taxes on millionaires with a millionaire. >> find new books for your fall reading list. james garfield is near death. candice millard on the destiny of their public. susan herman blames the pager act -- blames the patron act and is interviewed. also, a resistance fighter has a message for today's youth. life and liberty are worth fighting for. find the book to the schedule

online. >> before the presidential election of 1916, charles evans hughes was a lawyer and professor, a two-term governor of new york. and though he lost his bid for the presidency, his impact on political history remained, serving as a postwar secretary of state and ultimately chief justice of the u.s. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series, "the contenders," live from the supreme court building in washington, d.c., tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. for a preview about hughes, watch a number of videos about him at our special website for the series, cspan.org/thecontenders. >> i would like to say that i deny each and every single allegation against me today because when i ran for president, i said it would cut the deficit in half in court for

years. >> every weekend, the people and events the document the american story. this weekend, a look at the 1990's, with the anniversary of the confirmation of clarence thomas, and the 15th anniversary of the race between bill clinton and bob dole. click the c-span or button -- alert button. host: and now a discussion about taxes on millionaires. our guest happens to be a millionaire and happens to be one of the founders of patriotic millionaires. leo hindery is with patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength. could you tell us what this

group is? guest: this group was formed out of the concern that this one small group of women and men, roughly to unde 37,00237,000 hos taking advantage of the tax code in such a way that their tax rates were disproportionately low to the progressive traditions of this country and our tax code. what concerns me about this issue is that we focused on it to the exclusion of the tax reform that senator gregg spoke about. we have to fix this inequity and we will go into some detail about the magnitude of it. it should be the only way we go after tax reform.

the space-bar president yes it left me distressed because we did not broaden the discussion to overall tax reform. host: what you mean by inequity? guest: these 237,000 household paid an average of 22%. the women and men that are listening to the show this morning are paying a rate closer to 30% to 35%. there is no progression in the tax rate, though that was the intention. host: how do you define a millionaire? guest: i would be more demanding than the so-called warren buffett role. it says any household the next $1 million or more of income a year is the target in this instance.

there's an irony to that in that the household that makes $999, 999 is not wealthy and the addition of that extra $1 makes them wealthy. we have a large number of two- income families in this country. the cost for goods and housing -- anything above render thousand dollars -- $300,000 is wealthy. look at the wealthy group. their rate is lower than the average middle class taxpayer by 10%, 11%, to c12%. host: the unemployment rate is staying steady at 9 per wan.1%. job growth in september -- the

unemployment rate is staying steady at 91.1%. we will put the numbers up. you can talk to a mr. hindery. the numbers are up and we've divided them by our usual political affiliation. we have a separate number for millionaires on whether or not tax rates should be raised on millionaires. we're going to be joined this morning by a group of students in lawrence, kansas. our c-span bus is out there with the students and they will be asking questions of mr. hindery as well.

what is the tax rate that you pay? how like do you think it should go -- how high do you think it should go? guest: 103,000 jobs created in the month of september. we need to create 150,000 just to stay even with population growth. this tax issue is so timely is that if we do not find revenue some place that is fair to pay for the job creation initiatives that this country needs, this jobless recovery that we've lived with is going to continue. when we talk about the millionaires' tax, the warren buffett rule or these other initiatives, the purpose of

doing so is to fold -- twofold. we do have a demand for taxation in this country. i will answer your question in a second. we need to find revenue to fix this economy. in your site with senator gregg you spoke about the super committee -- in your segment. no jobs resolution or no job creation is that we need. back your specific question. i am most of these other women and men who were over $1 million a year, i at this point do not earn over $1 million a year, but i would be considered wealthy by every other term.

my tax rate and there's is in the lower 20's. some have manipulated the system to be below 15%. a fair tax rate for a person of means would be at least 30%. i think that should apply to individuals who make more than three under thousand dollars a year -- $300,000. it should be accompanied by tax reform to the middle class. if we do not go after the corporate tax reform, the tax avoidance schemes that senator gregg alluded to, i think we're just being derelict ethically as well as morally. host: leo hindery is our guest. patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength is the group. we're joined by students in lawrence, kansas.

we'll get our first student on the bus. if you tell us your name and ask your question. caller: hi. good morning. i wanted to ask what you thought the greatest economic principles my generation should embrace for a more prosperous future? host: mr. hindery? guest: i think the principles are easily stated. fairness to the middle class has to be the overriding principle in every aspect of our economy, how we regulate the economy, how the economy functions, and progressive taxation. those with greater means and greater incomes should pay a greater share of the burden of this country. that is a principle that we establish taxation.

in earlier segment, we heard senator gregg and i hope you have the opportunity to hear him, he mentioned to the host that we should not have these particular reforms because people will go out and find ways around them. that is as it inconsistent into leslie as saying we shouldn't have laws against criminality because people will find ways around them. the principle of fairness is a fundamental economic tradition and the principle of progressive taxation or once told to find the nation and i think should define your career and how you live in the economy. host: first call comes from washington, d.c. ralph on are millionaires line. caller: i have made $1 million

in one year. i come from very humble backgrounds and i started out as an engineer. i was shocked when i crossed in my career a $90,000 threshold and found out is an employee, i didn't have to pay any more medicare or medicaid, or social security. i thought there was a mistake in my paycheck. they say the top 1% pace this much of the taxes. they fail to tell the people that is only the federal income taxes. the top 1% can claim residency in any state that they want, especially florida, where they pay no income tax at all. i will give you a sound bite for the left. the top 1% earn a 3% of the income in this country. that is adjusted gross income -- the top 1% earned 30% of the

income in this country. the whole system is skewed terribly against the lower class and the middle class and especially when you talk about state taxes. host: do you think you should be paying the social security tax on all your income? the think your effective tax rates are too low -- do you think your effective tax rates are too low as a millionaire? caller what i caller: there was something wrong with that situation. i like to keep my income like everybody else does. i'm watching the middle class be

destroyed. i did not want to make my money on the backs of the middle class and the lower class. guest: i could not agree more with the caller. that is the issue of today. separate the issue that ralph spoke about. we would solve every concern about the efficiency and the efficacy of social security if people of means we continue to pay into social security above the roughly $100,000 cap that exists today. that single action would put such as occurred on a stable foundation for ever. when senator gregg says that it should stop at some arbitrary level that is a fraction of the wealthy income, that makes no sense. there is no intellectual foundation for that.

what route was trying to point to was -- what ralph which tried to point out to us -- simply reflect on the fact that the top 1% of wage earners in this country earned 20% of the nation's income, which is more than the bottom 40% earned combined. the importance of the issue that i'm talking about, progressive taxation all the way through the income strata and fairness is the underlying principle, they will appreciate what we're trying to do here. but what ralph was leading us to is that we need overall tax reform. this buffet rule is a head fake if this is all we get out of tax reform from the administration and congress. host: mr. hendry spent many

years in the telecommunications industry. he was ceo of at&t broadband. we have another student ready to ask a question. caller: my name is katie. there was a bill for people earning over $1 million. are you in favor of this bill? if so, what are the chances of the success? guest: i am in favor of this bill if it is part of overall tax reform. it is nonsensical to have the smallest amount of reform targeting $1 million and above. is $990,000 not a lot of income?

what we have to have is a fundamental fairness all the way through the income strata. i worry that congress is going to say no. this is an election year were almost nobody in congress is willing to approve even the most reasonable proposition put forward. what you can do for us as the thought leaders is to make it clear that you want tax fairness and you want progressive taxation to be the principal through all income strata. host: mr. hendrick also worked in politics. he was an adviser to the john edwards presidential campaign in a trade adviser on the 2008

president obama campaign. pittsburgh, frank, republican. caller: i was born in italy and became a citizen at the age of 10 years old. i went to the library and a figure out how to form a corporation at the age of 18 and formed my own corporation with $75. i figure out how to do corporate tax returns and how to -- i open my first business at the age of 18. i quickly figured out that if i put myself on the apparel, i will play doubles social security. so i will -- so some % for me on apparel and -- so 7% for me. i gave myself a big rent check

and pay capital gains and give myself a small paycheck. host: frank, thank you for that background. can you get your question? caller: it is simple to simplify the tax code. host: simple fly the tax code -- simplify the tax code. that goes along with a tweet. guest: let me react to frank briefly. i was 9 years old and working in the field as a farm worker. the wealth that i have was greeted by hard work, as was most wealth. as i grow near the end of my career, i have a lesser tax rate than i did at the early stages of my career. that is fundamentally unfair.

the flat tax is probably the most abuse of the middle class i could imagine. the solution to taxes is the application. the act as back to my point about the imperative for overall tax reform, peter. an alternative to the flat tax, and will listen to steve forbes year of your telling us that was somehow a solution to fairness. every thoughtful economists on both sides of the party line has found that to be foolishness. what would be less foolish would be a value added tax. that would have an enormous direction towards of fairness on the corporate side as well as on the individual side. over 300 nations in the world have a value added tax. we do not.

we are the only member of the g- 20 that doesn't have a value added tax on the corporate side. we find abuse on corporate taxation. much could be obviated if we edit value added tax -- eight value added tax. i am in favor of the buffet rule. it is not listening the sort of discussion there remains the imperative. host: we're joined by students from the student council and from government classes at lawrence high school in lawrence, kansas. their adviser is jason and we appreciate his help in setting this up. the c-span bus is there in lawrence, kansas. we spoke to a senior any

freshman. on screen is a junior -- on your screen is a junior. caller: my name is sarah. if flooded harpoon wins the presidency of russia once again, which negative and positive effect will this have on the u.s. economy? -- it vladimir putin wins the presidency. guest: i believe he is an ideal leader for russia. i wish there was more openness and fairness around the press issues. he has the smallest and many of us are concerned about the corruption that exist on the edges of almost all commerce in russia. without a strong hand and a visionary of the sort of mr. putin, a country that is

important for global success, i think it would be in distress today, sarah. i'm a fan of mr. putin's. i acknowledge his fillings 1 yes them -- i acknowledge his failings when he has them. there were unfair trade practices and the globalization of china, which is of grave concern to me. host: i was going to ask sarah's thoughts about your answer. we have ken from tennessee. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i have roughly $1 million in the bank's and hired return and use% that to live on -- and i have

about a 5% return that i used to live on. should i pay taxes on that? host: i'll hang up on you. caller: here is the thing. mr. leo has patriotic millionaires for fiscal strength as the name of his organization. he is talking about the $250,000 range. i have the means to take care of myself. i have credit that means by working extremely hard for about 30 years and putting money in the bank like you're supposed to so now i don't have to depend on the government's. . he is talking about wealth redistribution. guest: i am not talking about