coming up in 45 minutes, a discussion on federal, state, a education funding. randi weingarten joins us. we will talk with tucker carlson of the "daily caller" about the republican presidential race. and then a look at the health of the other end largest banks. yalman onaran of "bloomberg businessweek" is our guest. ♪ host: jenin the pagano appears before the senate to the sherry -- janet napolitano appears before the senate judiciary committee this morning. in other news, from "the wall street journal," this morning, the pentagon restricting the amount of detainee is coming out of guantanamo bay. as a sign of growing

popularity, fantasy sports leagues have launched a political action committee. it is october 19, a 3 hour program for you today. in an interview with abc news that took place yesterday, president obama compared the occupy wall trapped -- walt -- occupy wall street's movements and that he party -- and the tea party. what did you see previously when it came to the tea party as far as the tone of the rally and messages delivered? 202-737-0001 for those of you who support the occupied protest.

-- occupy protest. 202-737-000240 party supporters. -- 0002 for tea party supporters. president obama in an article this morning -- host: he goes on a little bit in the interview. our question this morning, it is the section of the interview that we want to focus on. let's hear what the president had to say when he talked about rallies on wall street and what was seen previously from the tea party. >> i understand the frustrations being expressed.

in some ways they are not that different from the protests that we saw coming from the party. people feel separated from their government. they feel that their institutions are not looking out for them. host: framing our question this morning, getting your thoughts on the differences between the two rallies. if you want to participate, call in and tell us why do think they are different, or not, but be prepared to tell us why. 202-737-0001 for those of you protest.rt the occupiey 202-737-0002 40 party

supporters. if you'd like to send us an e- mail, twitter.com/c-spanwj -- journal@c-span.org. steve, first and foremost, what do you think about the president's statement that there is not much difference in the protests? caller: president obama is the eternal diplomat. i am sure that he would make a comment like that. of course there are differences. but i noticed with the tea party -- first of all, these wall street protesters look like america. you see black people, hispanics, asians, the entire spectrum of americans. with the tea party it was almost predominantly white. that is one difference right there. as far as their ideology, the

tea party sprung up almost immediately after the election of president obama. they were just looking for anything to oppose him on. they happen to reach out to these so-called bailouts. and all of the banks were going to go under. something had to be done. the dishonesty of the republicans is astounding. stop there to get another viewpoint from georgia. brian comity party supporter, good morning. -- brian, tea party supporter, but morning. caller: -- good morning. caller: this is a different method from most tea party

supporters. the reason for that is the constitution. we should really be the constitution tea party supporters. we believe completely in the constitution. black and white, that is not where we are coming from. that is not a factor in the tea party at all. host: do you think there are differences? caller: yes. the occupy people are functioning on a portion of the constitution, not the whole constitution. we in the two-party, we want the whole constitution in place for all americans, including the people.y

host: this is from sam on twitter. host: westminster, maryland. good morning. caller: i think that the tea party and this not keep party have something in common. they have both mask themselves as indians. the current ones mask themselves as patriots. these are the same kind of people that brought hitler to power. they were so much into the constitution and about saving the taxpayers' money and everything, where were they when bush brought the country into a

war and spent $3 trillion in iraq on a war that was without pretense. where were they, every step along the way? after the torture of pow's? host: next up, daniels will, a georgia. -- daniellesville, georgia. caller: how many american flags do you see in the news reports on wall street? how many times do people have to realize that the communists and unions are behind this? the socialists are behind this. when obama comes out and says

that he backs this particular protest, what does that say about our president? is he a communist or a socialist? we need to determine what is going on in this country and change it. he is all for change, but we do not want it changing into a communist or socialist country. host: yesterday occupy wall street supporters said one of their most important themes was redoubling the commitment to a more egalitarian society. host: again, for the next 45

minutes -- the president is calling the tea party and the occupy wall street movement not different in nature. we want to hear what you think entellus fly. union city, new jersey. independent line. actually, the line for all others, but go ahead. caller: there is so much polarization. one thing that they have in common is that they are both american citizens. they are practicing their right to make a difference and they are not doing anything crazy. i do not know, everyone knows the same thing. money going to the war, it goes back and forth.

there are more people killed in chicago, in the streets. it is not about being unpatriotic. host: do you think that both groups are sending a similar message? caller: i think that that would be impossible. i am 53 years old. my mother is 87. she is world war ii generation. they worked so hard. things were easy for certain people. race is a factor, you know? 93 years of jim-crow. being a new york type of person, or a general way, but i am sure that in the self, human

beings would have been fighting against the union. it is just a different perspective. we have got to get together. smoke and mirrors, that is what the powerful people at the top are taking advantage of. host: this message from twitter -- host: again, that is one way the chicken talk to us this morning. a couple of stories from "the wall street journal," this morning.

host: silver spring, maryland. wall street supporter. caller: i am also an occupied -- occupy the seat -- d.c. supporter. one major difference is that the tea party is organized from the top down, which is not surprising, because these are people who are comfortable with the idea of disproportionate distribution of wealth. they are comfortable with some people having a lot more than other people. whether it is power or money. they are supported by the coen brothers money -- koch brothers money. they go back to the john birch

society. for people that depend on government programs, huge farm subsidies and the war machine. host: and the occupy supporters? caller: they are organized from the bottom up. to party supporters will not have conversations about anything unless you agree with them. i did not wander around arguing, i wandered around asking. occupy people, they are not funded by big money. they really want justice as fairness. the tea party does not want fairness. they are comfortable with a lot of injustice and unfairness. host: how often have you attended these washington, d.c. we dups? caller: they are trying to do it every day in front of the

capital, the supreme court. i have gone to several. they have very democratically organized meetings every evening at pearson square. i am old. i am in my 60's. i was not that active against vietnam, of which i regret. i wanted to observe how these young people were working to organize and articulate a message. it is impressive how dedicated they are. host: is there an organized message coming from." -- coming from occupy? caller: democracy does not work like that. i think that the organized message is they want justice and fairness. they want people to have equal

opportunity to rights. they do not want people starving in the streets. they want to have 1% of the american population -- they do not want to have 1% of the american population control in guelph, because it skews the politics and undermines our amazing constitution. host: if you want to participate in facebook, we have posted the question there as well and you can offer comments as well. paul martin wade in this morning of facebook. he said -- host: he goes on. you can coast and go on as well.

that is the page you will see. julia, tea party supporter. hello. go ahead. caller: i just want to say -- i do not want to belong to the two-party, i am an independent. but i tell you, but goes over the airwaves about the discrepancy is terrible. -- plot -- what goes over the airwaves about the discrepancy is terrible. check out george soros. but he party is going about things the american way -- the tea party is going about things the american way. this is not germany coming up.

we love our country. our men and women that are dying, and getting maimed, fighting not only for our country but, i tell you, god bless them. they have to take people to go in there and clean it up, because it is so filthy. host: next we haven't occupy -- next, we have an occupy supporter from texas. caller: they started blaming obama for the bailout, when bush did it. they had the tea party people holding up signs. then they said that they were going to forget, but they backed

up republicans in november. there are different people at each protests. there are all kinds, just on the tea party. there is some people out there with messages. host: rachel, when the president says that -- in some ways -- i am quoting -- that they are not that different from the tea party, how would you react to that? caller: what was the question? host: the president said that in some ways the protesters -- that the protests on wall street are not that different from those of the tea party. how would you react to that? caller: i agree. bailey pick out the nuts on the news. -- they only pick out the nuts

on the news. who pays for those tv stations? they are only going to show what they want people to see. that is just the way things are. people are homeless and everything else, and it is not by their choice. host: you may be just getting into this conversation midway. yesterday, in an interview the topic of occupy wall street came up. here is the president and what he had to say about that. host: -- >> i understand the frustrations being expressed in those protests. in some ways, they are not that different from the protests that we saw coming from the tea party. on the left and the right. people feel separated from their government. they feel that institutions are

not looking out for them. host: we are getting an idea if there are differences. if you represent the occupy folks, 202-737-0001. if you are a tea party supporter, 202-737-0002. all others, 202-628-0205. jim, good morning. caller: everywhere are round, it has been tried. china turn to capitalism because they realized that this fair, equitable way of life does not work with human existence. there is one thing that i agree with, politicians are too close to corporations. if that is the case, why are

they not demonstrating against the obama administration? they are too cozy with goldman sachs and general electric. they misappropriated u.s. taxpayer funds for stolen truck -- solyndra. when you talk about politicians and corporations being close to one another, this administration is the king, but they will not demonstrate against them. capitalism needs to be regulated. in 1998 they took off the regulations. reenact good regulation of capitalism. do not just say that it does not work and throw it out with the bath water when other countries are moving toward capitalism. host: headline is, pledging support in libya --

host: washington, d.c.. fred, in the and the line. sorry, i pushed the wrong button. give me a second. go ahead. caller: i wanted to say that the

difference between the tea party and occupy wall street, mr. obama is looking at two movements that come from castration. we have to realize that people can be hijacked. you have to see who is approaching -- who is approaching and how they are dealing with that movement. a couple of years ago, i remember sarah palin and a bunch of other people came to virginia, close to the pentagon. they were showing anger, even though there are a lot of tea party people operating on

principle. these people have shown anger. the root of the tea party comes from the people with the money, as opposed to a bunch of kids that are good with it the internet. they communicate with each other. the way that our country is back lot. -- backlog. host: fairfax, virginia. caller: i was there with the tea party where 3000 people showed up outside the capital. four helicopters flew in and took the car. that is why he does not know what he is talking about. the reality is that george soros, he is the one who puts

all of this stuff together. he is the party man. he has a small minority of people out here, stinking up the place. the tea party are people that had to go to work on monday. host: ill., padang betty, occupy supporter. caller: good morning. first, i have three comments to make. a few days ago you had a young man on the program that was a part of the tea party. a very intelligent young man. he said what this was all about. he explained it very thoroughly. go to college, explain what you are going to do by getting a job.

the tea party does not know how to communicate with these young people. fox news was laughing about the president not getting support from wall street this time because he is against them. host: if you had to highlight the differences, " with the one main difference be? caller: -- what would the one main difference be? caller: the tea party was primarily caucasian. host: houston, texas, tea party supporter. caller: good morning, i am calling from houston. please do not cut me off. i have three short comments to make. one, under the fifth amendment, voters are guaranteed freedom of speech.

for me, i feel like that right has been usurped, slowly. i understand that the patriot act was enacted as a result of desperate times. my second point, george w. bush, my second point is that the root of all evil here seems to be the person or party that tries to please everyone. whoever that is, if someone could figure that out, then we will know where the real problem is. host: how does that relate to the rallies we are talking about? caller: that is my third point. while i support some issues on both sides, i support some

opinions on both sides, sarah palin -- i believe her family values show. everything she has put out into the media has been positive in terms of her family. host: flint, michigan, democratic line. caller: i think that the difference between the demonstrators is that everyone else is pulling out. the tea party came out because they felt like the good old boys lost control of their government. the tea party would have let us have these sufferings and injustices that go on.

anyone could vote republican now. they are not american. this is all about the greed of corporate people and seeing us suffer. that is my opinion. host: last night's debate, "the washington post," talking about the event and a research poll that they did in comparison. host: o'fallon, missouri, cindy,

at the party support line. we should note that at 8:30 we will take a look at features from last night debate -- last night's debate. cindy, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. as far as the differences between the occupy wall street people and the tea party, they have similar positions on some of the issues, but there are things i am noticing in reference to your topic this morning. the media covers them differently. july, 2011, that was one of the small to parties. the ones with the big crowds, there were no arrests. they pick up after themselves.

the park service, you know, they were so impressed that they did not have any cleanup work to be done. the wall street folks, we have got so much trash and violence. there has been a rest and all kinds of miss behavior amongst the occupy wall street groups. all round the country, not just new york. so, some of their messages are similar. because both groups dislike what the government is doing. but they have different solutions as to how to fix it. as far as the differences, it is a lot of behavior differences. a lot of media coverage differences. i have stood in multiple tea party events, here in the middle

of missouri. i stood next to friends who are black. i stood next to people who are different than me. yet those types of people do not get coverage by the media. those people saying that it is all white people, that is not true. there are lots of people. lots of races. there are democrats, independents, the tea party folks are just as fed up with our government as the occupy wall street people are. but our solution is to make the government smaller and allow individuals, families, cities and states, make their own decisions, getting the federal government out of our hair. host: 1 e-mail response this morning is that obviously there is no difference.

host: off of twitter this morning, the response goes like this host: twitter, again, is one way the chicken, and this morning. ohio, ron, good morning. caller: i agree with the callers this morning. i would like to state that i believe that the movement is actually gaining momentum, mainly because americans have been driven by the idea that they are not organized. it is a complicated process that took place. there are a lot of ways to look at it. look at the methods that they use.

wall street was bailed out. they were supposed to do certain things. adjusted not do it. people up in arms over losing their jobs -- they just did not do it. people up in arms over losing their jobs. there are certain ways that this whole thing played out. the money from the tarp is the biggest problem. people are up in arms and making a show. i say -- go for it. host: this is from "the washington post."

host: east manor, new york. gail, tea party supporter. and caller: i think that what i want to say is that i think that both demonstrations are just

demonstrating a general dissatisfaction of the american people. we just look at it a little differently. the occupied -- occupy wall street people blame the corporations and the rich. tea party blames the government. i think that there is enough blame to go around. including general citizens. i think that there are people who are frustrated that there have been no consequences. i guess one of the things that makes me most unhappy is seeing the right attacking the left and the left attacking the right. rather than trying to find common ground. so of the back and forth is just ugly and sad. host: liz smith says --

host: hammond, indiana. go ahead. caller: i would like to say that the difference between the tea party and wall street occupiers, the occupiers on wall street are frustrated because they are going to school and when they graduate, they have nowhere to go to work. what did eric cantor sponsor of the other day? another abortion bill. the tea party says they want to get the government out. how about getting out of the two wars? i would also like to state that in 2006, the gop -- before nancy pelosi got the speakership -- a bill tooffice passed

fund 75 years of pension. they get only a small amount of tax money. barely a single by more penny. they say they want the government out of people's hair? why is the gop and the government trying to support the post -- destroy the postal service? host: we have posted this topic as our question on facebook, there is quite a string already. 64 comments. do not know where they are located from, but there they are. facebook.com/cspan. that is where you will find it. quite a conversation going on there. comments about what we are talking about. if you are interested in looking at these protests for yourself,

as we go back in history, i invite you to go to our c-span video library as well. it contains the archives. specifically, if you go to the video library section and type in a tea party or occupy, you will get more information on those videos. columbia, south carolina. joe, independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: well, thank you. caller: i appreciate your taking my call this morning. saycently fell -- let's from a tree. i have watched both sides of the issue. i am bed ridden. i want to know -- that he party

seems to be -- they have their groups together, they have more reform to bring to the table. in washington last week, they must have interviewed 15 people asking why they were out there demonstrating. not one of them could tell me. host: you are saying it is a matter of organization? caller: out of the ones that they interviewed, what are you protesting about, and none of them could give a specific answer. host: from twitter --

host: a story in "the new york times," cutting back regulations on hospitals. host: tampa, florida. tea party supporter. good morning. caller: the biggest difference

is that the tea party is really grassroots. typical, hard-working americans, pretty much tired of government over-spending and not doing what they need to. that is the biggest difference that i take from it. every individual that belongs to the two-party, they have their own individual message. second, i believe that both groups can come together and finally realize that what we need is term limits for our politicians. that is the only way we will stop corruption. politicians should be in office to be patriots and do things for people, rather than just getting inside information. as long as people need entitlements, of the left will always be in power.

-- entitlements, the left will always be in power. host: fantasy sports leagues getting political representation. this is from "usa today." host: san antonio, texas. occupy supporter. caller: you have a tendency to cut people off.

you do not appreciate how they see things. host: not true, but go ahead. caller: the tea party was an astroturf movement, supported by industry. they put a lot of money into it, going around, assigning people, telling people that they were going to teach the president grammar. which, in fact, republicans are the culprits of these things. people are dying because of cuts in services to people that do not have jobs. on the other hand, wall street supporters, that is an organic movement.

it is not money that fires people up. it is ideas. you just have to look at them to know their platform. get money out of government. host: some callers have said that george soros supports this group. caller: thank god for that. how many dollars as george soros put into this organic movement? can you tell me? host: no. caller: know, you can. -- no, you cannot. they want to tell the big lie, telling it over and over again, until people start to believe it. because we want to show a system

that has varied opinions, just because you do not have one does not mean that you do not matter. whether they are truth or not. host: we have to go, but you got your time, ok? have a good day. dunn, a san antonio, texas. in our next segment, we will have tucker carlson to look at the debate that took place in las vegas. education policy is next. the president of the education of teachers association will be with us. ♪

>> because i am a businessman. incidentally, i am proud to be connected with a barge company. the opposition has attempted to picture me as the opponent of liberalism. yet i was a liberal before many of those men heard the word. i fought for the reform of woodrow wilson before another roosevelt adopted and distorted the word liberal. >> a member of the democratic party for over 20 years, switching in 1940. although he lost the election, he left his mark on political history, speaking out for civil- rights in becoming a foreign

ambassador for his foreign -- for his former opponent. wendell willkie is one of the 14 men focused on in "the contenders." friday, 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, but iowa freedom candidate forum. watch our live coverage of herman cain, rick santorum, and rick perry, including ron paul and michele bachmann, on the "road to the white house." >> it is clear to me that with our priorities, to further notice every decision that the national government makes, every close call should be made in favor of economic growth. every time i should be broken in favor of growth in the private sector. >> he worked as an adviser in

the reagan white house, and as governor of indiana he implemented spending cuts that introduced a spending surplus. sunday, mitch daniels on his book and his decision to not run for president, on a "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, randi weingarten, president of the american federation of teachers. welcome. guest: thank you. host: what is the discussion in the senate? guest: i do not understand the discussion in washington these days. everywhere you go all around the country, people talk about how important education is for their children. how important it is to educate america in this 21st century economy. all you have to do is walk into

any school around the country to realize that cuts have been huge. 300,000 educators have lost their jobs. art, music, physical education. courses that kids need. i was in a school this week in yonkers, new york. 500 of the 2000 teachers have been laid off because of economics. thousands of kids who had gotten pre-kindergarten, children i had talked to, i said what you need from the adults? there was a science lab where children were in there like sardines. all you have to do is go to a local school and see the effect of budget cuts. why the congress and the senate blocked the bill last week, i do

not understand. but thank god, they are putting up another piece of this week. hopefully they will come to their senses. what $35 billion would mean is putting people back to work. cumulatively, you can put 400,000 people back to work in the teaching sector. the entire bill itself would have put 1.9 people -- 1.9 million people back to work. talk to parents across the country. talk to teachers and educators across the country. host: that $30 billion or so, specifically it goes to teachers? for teachers support as well? guest: teacher support as well.

people that need the health care to go to college. it needs to educators support. the last time this was done was a couple of years ago and it helped to get people back to work. all across the country, teachers have been subsidizing budget cuts. furloughs across the country. wage increases -- wage decreases that teachers are taking on. what is going on is, they want kids to succeed. host: when they get this money, how long will teachers be able to stay at work? guest: $35 billion is a one-shot deal. it is a stimulus. ultimately, what we have seen is if we can get people back to work well, rigid work now, that is the most important.

-- back to work now, that is the most important. kids cannot control being born during a great time. you cannot be 5 years old again. if you hear the urgency in my voice, it is because these resources are needed. host: in terms of support from republicans amounts to this piece? guest: that is not in it -- that is what i do not understand. before we have this high octane movement to get the president out of office. we have republican support a couple of years ago. now that the entire block, blocking the vote last week, i do not understand it. hopefully, there will be republican support. the schools and the nation's need it. i do not need it. kids need it. parents need it. we talk a lot about how we have

to help kids. but you have to invest in them. host: how will the money it sold out, if it gets past? guest: the money gets apportioned in terms of need and population. for example, the states that have the highest title one eligible kids look at the disproportionate for the states that have the greatest need. host: randi weingarten, talking to us about education policy. if you would like to join us, you can do so on the following lines. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. we have set aside a special line for educators, if you would like to ask a question.

202-628-0184. where you stand in support for the president these days? guest: in terms of what the president has done with the jobs bill, we are focusing on getting people back to work for education opportunities in this time, like you have never seen. it is terrific. we are for square in support of that. if you are asking about endorsements, we have a process. we talked to members. we talk about what to do in terms of the coming election. after we see in january, the primaries in the republican party, we will be talking to members about making the endorsements.

host: a couple of quick issues -- teachers for equality? guest: we believe in evaluation. i am resolute on having real teacher evaluation. so are our members. what are teachers teaching them of what our students learning? -- teaching? what are students learning? ultimately, we have to focus on high performance. but we have to get the teachers to do their job and understand that that they cannot do it all. host: when it comes to the president's race to the top initiative? guest: in some states, we have worked with them very closely. i and others, not so closely. for example, brace to the top was a piece of the post-stimulus bill.

it said to the states and that if you are willing to apply for this money, you will get it under the following conditions. part of the conditions were to create status-driven evaluation systems to focus on data, collaboration in terms of evaluation, and turning around low performance schools. there was a piece of what would be done in terms of charter's. there were pieces that we thought were good and pieces that we thought were troublesome. focusing on education issues, the most important, everyone agrees, early childhood. having services for kids early prepares them for schools. that was not part of the original race to the top.

doing what they are doing in cincinnati, where they are focusing on the whole child, instead of just math and english, was not part of the original race to the top. there are unions across the country engaged in it. these evaluation systems were put into place and, after what happened in tennessee, people have said that we have to change this. taking time from teachers for their teaching, they have basically become [unintelligible] makers as opposed to educating and learning. host: cheryl, you are on with randi weingarten. caller: good morning. the discussion has been about the president, but the major discussion needs to be about

congress itself. i wanted to see what you thought about this. whether or not this is still an issue in congress, about the haves and have-nots. when you look at the districts that each congressman is in, their children are all in an excellent public schools. one of the other. when you tend to have your own family and your own circumstances live with and a bubble, such as these public schools in high income districts, i think you have a skewed view of education in the sense of the need of what needs to be out there in the sense of money. if you go into the city school districts, perhaps the richmond school district, you will see a huge disparity.

guest: i agree with you. i do not paint every person in congress with the same brush. the people that blocked the jobs bill last week and was essentially the entire republican party. ultimately, that should not have happened. you are right. kids that have the least need the most. what we are seeing in places around the country, more than main street, lots of places we are seeing increased poverty, increased unemployment, increased instability. in that situation, kids need their school to be more stable places, and in more resources. that is why we keep on focusing on wraparound services for kids. but that costs money. if we can get our elected officials actually into schools,

spend the day with the teacher, look at what is going on, see what we are trying to do to help all kids succeed -- not just some -- and see what we are trying to do in schools across the country, particularly in impoverished areas. host: a comment on twitter. guest: this whole issue needs to be debunked a little bit. the nation that we compete with spends about 5%, 10% less than we do, but what they also did not did is they do not spend money with special needs kids the way that we do. also, health and welfare benefits that school systems and here, they spend nationally. when you look at the oecd nations that out-compete us,

there might be a differential of 5%, 10%, not this huge amount of people are talking about. if we want the best and brightest teachers, we have to pay a decent wage. if we want to help all kids, including special needs, we need to make the investment. i have seen with my own two eyes across the country kids are suffering. when we do not have had music in schools for kids, we are not helping kids prepare for mathematics. when we do not have the technology programs, we are not preparing kids for careers. when the band with in a school district is so low that you can only have one computer on at a time, like i saw in west virginia, we are not preparing

kids. resources are needed right now. spending better? absolutely, but it is needed right now. host: north carolina. you are on the line for randi weingarten. caller: i have a couple of questions. i am republican but i sympathize with teachers 190%, and especially young kids. you have 40, 50 young kids to deal with in one class, that is a lot. i do not think there should be any more than 25. still at know if you are aske teacher or if you are just ahead of the teachers union? guest: i wish i still talk. i used to teach at clara barton high school in new york. i wish i had the time to teach

because i loved it. caller: i look back at my elementary years, and i loved them. high school, junior high, not so much. i am 53, so you can imagine, teachers liked to whip your butt. guest: we are the same age, sir. caller: i do not know what you pay in union dues, i do not care about your salary, but could you put maybe $10 per person in your union dues? guest: we do this sort of thing all the time. last week we were in was to virginia. our union matched the district

was doing to make sure that kids get textbooks. teachers spend out of their own pockets hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a year to subsidize their kids' education. you are right. education is a bipartisan issue. host: i want to read a tweet -- ken in new jersey says -- guest: two things. in the united states of america, we believe in teaching all kids. the market is great for niches,

when you want to help some and then you believe in some kind of trickle-down theory. the kids that we have to care about the most are the ones that need the most, and market theology does not help in that situation. in fact, in the u.s., education is probably the only sector where we say all kids, not some, should have a decent education. and forget about my ideology about wanting to help all kids. let's look at the evidence. we have had charter schools, choice situations for the last 20 years. we have seen from the evidence, supposedly marked-based theories, 83% of charter schools do not do as well or two about the same as public schools.

only 17% to better. 34% do worse. there are some people who believe there should be private schools, other competition. let them do what they want to do. my job is to work as hard as i can to make sure public education is the best it can be , and that every parent has a neighborhood school in which to send his or her child, that he or she thinks is a great school. host: clearwater, florida. frank on the democrat's line. caller: thank you for letting me be here and discuss this issue. i feel, as a teacher -- i am retired now -- it is a political issue. i am a union supporter.

the reason i support them, i was in a small union in florida. there was a walkout. i love kids. i was trying to seek more support. there could be no agreement. the politicians do not agree, the parents have to not agree. everyone has their own purpose in mind. however, as i see it from past experiences, at the time of the walkout in florida, the governor would not support us at all. it had nothing to do with his politics. it is too bad the union does not have all the power to make the decisions that need to be made for the health of kids. if we do not support an army of

people who are going to help, we are throwing our hands up, and forget it all. i put my son for private school because he has a learning disability. now he works, he likes to work. he drives a truck, goes to shredding companies and takes papers and have them shredded. he is not afraid of work. if i had to do it again, i would teach him the same way. guest: i sympathize with what the gentleman said. i am not sure that is the way to solve these problems in all cases. we have to work with principles, administrations, particularly with parents, but what the gentleman is actually saying is , education is a pretty complex

thing. if there was a silver bullet -- particularly because we now have important it is -- it would have been done. there are no silver bullets. but you have to do five things at the same time and they have to be managed well. you have to focus on teacher quality. you have to focus on in teaching kids with the curriculum. he needed tools and conditions to do that. you need a collaborative work environment. and you need to make sure that the kids who are falling behind, that they have the kind wraparound services that they need. all of that needs to happen at the same time. the schools that do that, you see them doing very well. there is no silver bullet in education. what happens in a time like this, people want to wish that there was. host: this is robert from twitter --

guest: it is not fair to teachers, but that is to teachers are. it is the only job i know in the world where people actually subsidize the work they are doing. what we tried to do in new york city, but the program has been suspended because of budget cuts, but we asked the city council to figure out a stipend for each teacher which they would used directly for supplies for kids. even with that, teachers were paying $2,000 out of their own pockets for their kids. that is who we are. host: christine, republican line. caller: i was in pennsylvania, have lived through a teachers strike. i have also been fortunate enough to have kids graduate

from public and private school here. i can tell you the difference. the private school teachers make very little money, less than half the salary of public schools. my neighbor happens to be a public schoolteacher, makes a six-figure salary, teaches second grade in the public- school system, and is not allowed to tutor children on school property. she has to do so in the public library or in the child's home. she charges $60 an hour. i had a child taking ap calculus in a private high school in the area, falling behind, and the teacher had a six-hour session in her home for free. that is a private school teacher. my son could not attend because he was visiting the college that he was planning to attend. the following week, she tutored

him after school and every day for free. i just feel we need a voucher system. at private school, my kids get their teachers private phone number. they have texted their teacher before. you never hear that in public school. guest: let me say this. my mother was a schoolteacher for 30 years. i have been a schoolteacher for a while as well, and said earlier. most teachers i now spend time well after school, do the kind of to bring you are talking about -- tutoring you are talking about. and nobody ever wants to go on strike. that is a last resort.

hopefully, we can resolve issues without going on strike. under no child left behind, tutoring was set aside for private entities. for the last 10 years, teachers could not officially due to during on school grounds because of the set aside under no child left behind. having said that, a lot of teachers do remedial teaching after school. a lot of them do it at their home, as a second job, and a lot of them do it for free. host: the lead editorial in "the washington post" takes up the education bill. senator harkin promoting a version.

guest: there are a lot of things that are wrong with the current no child left behind. anyone that you talk to will tell you if it is broken. one of the reasons it is broken is because the accountability system does not work. if you see the 82% of schools that secretary bentsen has said under nclb, the behin needs to be a better system. the harkin bill -- and this work has to be done through congress. we understand why the president wanted a waiver process, but it needs to be done through congress.

we agree with "the washington post" that there should be more attention paid to accountability. the accountability system -- what they are saying, it should not simply be focused on the lowest 5% or 10% of schools. they need to be accountability for all. however, we have problems with the harkin bill. the point is, they actually came up with a bill, have done something to get the ball moving, and you have to give them credit for that. what they are trying to do is look at the problem from the past and see what we can do to improve it. but we have to focus on insuring that all kids get a great education. and to the extent that esea was really about helping the kids who needed it the most, that is

what we should be focusing on. host: focusing on the teacher, what is a good judge of a teacher? guest: just like the embracing of standards after notre left behind, our union has embraced the need for a teacher in valuations. not the drive-by evaluation that i had when i was a teacher, or evaluation is strictly based on standardized test data -- that had never been validated for this purpose. neither one of those extremes work. what we have learned in the past few years from the districts that are doing it well, it is tough to do it well, it needs to

be multiple-measured, and it is best done locally in terms of a district and teachers union working out what it should look like. aft put a framework out for this. we have time the issue of due process to this. we have reformed the issue of tenure ourselves because it should be about due process, it cannot be a shield for incompetence, nor can be an excuse for mentors not to manage. -- managers not to manage. it has to be a process of and i teaching what i said i would teach, and our teachers -- are the children learning? that is a simple question to ask. peering out that system is tough. singapore has done it well. we need to figure it out.

host: ellen from milford, pa.. i agree that education is certainly a complex endeavor. and it is getting more complex, i believe. secondly, in response to the woman who called who had a child in public school who did not get tutoring, in my experience, i was a teacher, my husband is a school the administrator, and my son is in his first year of teach for america -- guest: it is all in the family. caller: absolutely. for us, public teachers come early to tutor, use their lunchtime, prep time, and stay after school to tutor.

when there are exams coming up, they will have kids over to their homes to tutor. they even open it up to any child of any teacher who might need it. there is no excuse for a child not to get tutoring. and this is free of charge. the teachers do not get a stipend for it. education, like you said, using his own money, my son is making a decent salary for a new graduate. perhaps not if he was in the financial or business world. i see how much he has already spent on his classroom. he supplied his own copy paper, he buys his own books. he is spending so much of his salary on classroom supplies. guest: your experience is closer

to what i have seen around the country, my experiences with schoolteachers. in america, public education is one of the only services that we say every child is entitled to. there will be some situations where people have had a bad experience, but overwhelmingly, the teachers in this country care about kids and want to make a difference. that is why they become teachers. it is a tough job for lots of different reasons, including the conditions are not great, we do not get the tools that we need, and we make decisions ourselves on how we help kids. your experiences are much closer to what i have seen across the country. host: we have set up a line for educators. elisabeth from south carolina.

caller: good morning. my fear is teachers are not held to the standards that they need to be held to. there are so many wonderful, good teachers, but there are so many children who get left behind early. i was mainly a second grade teacher. when students would come in so far behind, i felt it was my obligation and joy to be able to help the student get on grade level. unless children get on grade level early, they go through the whole system behind. there are many good teachers in the classroom. and there are many teachers who

do not want to be there. host: we lost her. callerguest: this is why pre- kindergarten is so important. what it does, it actually prepares kids at the same times that their minds are most nimble. they are learning more between 0 and 5, because the way our brain works, perhaps more than any other time in your life. we can make sure that they are prepared for first, second, and third grade. second and apart from that, we agree with you. we have to ensure that teachers

are teaching to a very high standard, but they cannot do it alone. you need professional development, mentoring, training, the tools and conditions to do our job. our union is trying to do a lot of that but we need to work together with administrators to do that work. host: fondu lack, louisiana. angela. caller: i am a home schooler. i do not get any money to home school my children. all of the kids i know in the home school community are excellent students. we do not have money from the federal government but the kids in our community are able to out-perform public school kids. i would like to know what you think about that?

guest: you have put your finger on something which is important, parental engagement. it is your choice, ma'am, to home schooled your kids, just like it is a parent's choice across the country to choose parochial schools, private schools, other schools. our job in the public-school system is to help all kids within our embrace. not only research but common sense shows that when parents are partners, we have kids that do well. we have a teacher that is effective at school, a parent at home, and it is a much better partnership. our job is to help, regardless of whether we have parental

engagement. you do see that in home school. host: what about four states that decide to take waivers for no child left behind? guest: states to apply for waivers have to agree to do the common core, in meth and english, as well as the other subjects for which there will be a common standard. two, state to take the waiver have to create a state evaluation system for teachers. we have been pushing that that is about continuous improvements. like, in singapore, which has out-competed with us in education. states will also have the ability to have some latitude in terms of the set-up sides that exist with no account left

behind, and we expect of a lot of states will want to get rid of those because they need the funding for schools. host: york, pennsylvania. nancy on the democrat's line. caller: i want to talk about a subject that has been a pet peeve of mine for years. disregard high-school students. i remember when i was in high school, the guidance counselor called me into his office. he said the subject that i had excelled in was being a secretary. that is what i should do. however, i took subjects that i did not like, i was not interested in. the teachers have an attitude with me, i had an attitude with the teachers. i remember biology. we were supposed to go out and get in sex, put needles in

them, put them under glass, and i refuse to do it because i was not interested. naturally, i failed the subject. this is 1961. i remember students quitting school because they were forced to take subjects that they were not interested in and they did not feel that that was going into anything for them in their future. i did turn out to be a successful secretary. my family did not have the money to put me through college. however, i do not know if the public schools are still doing that where they are asking children to take subjects that they are not interested in. guest: i think you have raised two incredible points. 70% of my union members are

women. what you faced in the early 1960's was a lot of discrimination against women, attacking women to professions like teaching, nursing, secretaries. that does not go on as much anymore. at the same time, we have become a real competitive labor market. if we do not start paying teachers a decent wage from the beginning of their career to the end, we are losing women who want to go to other professions. that kind of tracking does not happen anymore. i am sorry that it happened to you. there are some courses that all kids have to take. for example, we want to make sure all kids are fluent in

mathematics, illiterate in english -- literate in english. we want to make sure that kids have a basic civics education, science skills. there are courses that they have to take. part of what is hard about teaching is you need to figure out how to engage kids, even if they may not be interested in biology, social studies, or six. that is part of why it is a hard job. host: baltimore, maryland. on our line for educators. mary. caller: i wanted to talk about the pay for school teachers. it is abysmal. we talk about how important early childhood education is, but for a lot of people, they

think of it as a throw-away time. the highly able kids, the kids that are in gt, they need a lot of resources as well. ap courses are not gt. it is a different focus and a different outcome. there are different needs involved. guest: again, you have also raised two important points. on the early childhood pay, our union has actually started -- as have other unions in the country -- to find a way to increase the pay of preschool and pre-k teachers. there are some entities that are opposed to that because they do not want to find the resources in order to do this, but you are right.

we have started organizing pre- kindergarten outside of education processes to try to create a living wage. this is one of the reasons why no child left behind is broken. in the focus on ayp, it has narrowed the curriculum, has focused on mathematics and english in many districts because they wanted to meet the mark. the casualty has been a lot of the enrichment classis, a lot of the work that we have done in the past two ensure that all kids get a decent education, that they get the education that meets the high expectation that they have and we should have for them. host: randi weingarten, thank

you. coming up, we will look at a specific federal agency that looks at big banks, gives powers to big banks to wind down. tucker carlson will be our next guest. first, an update from c-span radio. >> some political news for you this morning. ,resident obama's top adviser david axelrod, says the new health care law was largely modeled on the system mitt romney put in place as massachusetts governor and said that governor romney is switching position now that he is running for president. he says "it appears as if mr. romney has no court to him." michelle obama set out today to join the president on the third and last day of his bus tour. the first couple will speak at a base in hampton, va. on the

importance of hiring veterans. the social security administration is set to announce that after two years without an increase, recipients will get a raise next year. experts project a 3.5% increase. >> watch more video of the candidates, see what political reporters are saying, and track the latest political contributions. c-span's campaign 2012. it helps you to navigate the political landscape. there are also links to c-span media partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> at the department of education, my work with judge thomas was positive. i had a good deal of

independence. i thought he respected my work and trusted my judgment. >> it has been 20 years since the anita hill testified, testifying that clarence thomas sexually harassed her. she spoke about what that meant on her life and a lasting effect it had on her culture. >> when you return from a testimony that has become this event that you really had no idea was going to be what it was -- everybody was doing pollings. immediately after the hearing, the polls had shown that 70% of the population thought that i had perjured myself. so with all of the other threats that were happening to me, bomb

threats, personal threats happening to me, i had to go to the grocery store and i realize that seven out of every 10 people that i ran into at the supermarket thought i had perjured myself. >> watcher complete testimony at the c-span video library. host: joining us now is tucker carlson, daily caller editor in chief, fox news commentator. what was the biggest surprise from last night? guest: the drama. it was great from that perspective. i would say rick perry's performance was a surprise to me. he cannot be stupid. he has been the governor of

texas. i did not think he performed well. i have been waiting for him to dazzle us with his ability as a speaker. there were things that he said last night that i sincerely could not understand, and i was totally sober. host: such as? guest: his explanation for why he did not agree with the teacher that attacked more ominous and as a cult. he was a little bit like the tune "american pie." i understood each verse, but that did not amount to a good narrative. host: herman cain? guest: i like him. he is a compelling figure. he deserves credit, from my point of view, for saying things that are specific. literally, in the span of one sentence, he explained he would

be willing to negotiate with al qaeda if they were holding a u.s. hostage, but he would never negotiate with terrorists. this is the problem with never having run for office before. you are not prepared for every question. he is clearly not. host: a lot of talk about the exchange between governor romney and rick perry over immigration. how governor romney responded. >> those people that hired illegals ought to be penalized. mitt, you lose all understanding from my perspective because you hired illegals in your home, and you knew about it for one year. the idea that you can stand before us and talk about being strong on immigration is on aunt's face, and the height of hypocrisy. >> rick, i do not think i have

ever hired an illegal in my life. i look for to see your facts on that. i am speaking. i am speaking. you get 30 seconds. this is the way the rules work. you get 60 seconds and i get 30 seconds to respond? >> you knew you had the legal working. >> are you going to let me finish talking? this has been a tough couple of the bids for representative. i understand that. when you were governor, you said you do not want to build a fence. you put in place a magnet to draw illegal to the state, which was given $100,000 of tuition credit to illegals come into this country. the big states of illegal

immigrants are california and florida. in the last few years they have had no increase of immigration. texas has had a 60% increase in immigration. if there is anyone that has a record of immigration that does that stand to muster, it is you. host: your take on his performance? guest: well, there is a war going on in mexico that we do not really talk about. what a dumb exchange. rick perry says, i have got you, you hired illegals. who cares? we all fall short of our ordeals -- ideals. we are all hypocrites to some extent. he has this profoundly dumb gotcha moment, and mitt romney wines about how he is breaking

the rules of the debate. and then the audience, which is clearly loaded -- they paid a bunch of mitt romney people to park in the audience. they jump in. an unimpressive colloquy, in every way. i am not saying that these guys are not impressive people, but that was not an exchange that made you want to vote for either of them. host: our guest is with us until 9:15. if you have a question, republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. journal@c-span.org and twitter.com/cspanwj. going forward, what do these candidates have to do to solidify a their appeal to the bases and turn that into support at the polls? guest: it is good to know what

these guys -- i know that there are a lot of republicans saying this will damage the brand. the truth is, they should have to jump through a bunch of different groups before they take on barack obama. the truth is, the republican party the way it is, it is mitt romney's nomination to lose. the money is swinging behind him. the people that run the park behind the scenes have decided that he would be the nominee. the job for everyone else is to be the guy that could possibly challenge. it seems to me, based on last night's performances, newt gingrich, written off by all the smart people as unelectable, has a shot of being the anti-mitt romney, at least for the next month or so. it would be pretty hard for herman cain or rick perry to claim that they could be elected. newt gingrich is certainly

smarter than everyone in the room, smarter than me. he should step up and be that guy. host: does he have the support? guest: he does not. he has not been taken seriously at all. mostly because of embarrassing stories about his personal life. he is a prickly character, but he is a flat out interesting person that has ideas worth listening to, who is not going to turn and say, you hired an illegal alien. that is like me saying -- " if i was giving a lecture to schools about smoking cigarettes, and then you jump in and say, i saw your smoke cigarette once. is that taking down my argument? my view is legitimate. anyone who makes so-called arguments like that discredits themselves. host: tucker carlson is with us.

the lakewood, florida. carmen, democrat's line. caller: good morning. i have never agreed with tucker carlson but i do agree with what he said about mr. perry. he does not make -- he did not make any sense last night. i could not fathom anything that he said. and attacking the other gentlemen for being mormon. people are right, religion has nothing to do with being president of the united states. we should all be included in this discussion. this is an important election we have coming up. what this debate proved his -- is this was more like a circus

than a debate. guest: actually, i thought a couple of the candidates made, not the case that you described, but made a case for not judging mitt romney's religion. values are important. if you belong to the arian nation church, it is fair to say your bellies are inconsistent with american values and should not be president. but as far as your path to salvation, your theology on a granular level, that is sort of out of bounds, at least for purposes of the presidential debate. i thought they did a good job, particularly rick santorum, explaining the role of faith in public life. host: the pugh research center asked people to connect religion with candidates. mormons and came up often with mitt romney. guest: religion has always been

a big thing. there was a book written a couple of years ago that was fiercely against more monism. it was not popular with a lot of people. will people hold that against mitt romney? no. i have never seen anything that suggests that his religion with factor into voters' minds. i am episcopalian, so i do not have a dog in this fight, but have ever dealt with mormons? they are nice. i have never been mugged by one. i suspect i never will be. i suspect most people have that feeling. host: republican line. joansville, virginia. caller: good morning. rick perry, i have never heard him say anything except good for the mormon faith.

the other thing i would like to say is, obama was a very good speaker. that is what got everyone attached to him. mitt romney is a good speaker. that is what gets everyone attached to him. fox news is so hypocritical. i wish you would go back and tell them. mitt romney created health care and was up against obama's health care. he should apologize to obama. if you want a job, you better vote for rick perry, i am telling you. and he was for abortion. now he is against it. he is wrong on so many of the issues. anybody that supports mitt romney, i think, is wrong. guest: i do not necessarily

agree with your conclusions, but it is hard to argue with your fax. mitt romney has been -- perry has been consistently conservative. mitt romney has not been. you are right, simply because you are glib or eloquent does not mean that you will be good at running the country. i think obama has proven conclusively. however, he still need to be able to articulate what you believe in and why. the single biggest step the president has is the fact that he is the president. people listen to him. he can preempt prime-time programming to make his case. the ability to win people over to your side is central to being president. i would say, on the question of mitt romney's liberalism -- my editorial comment that i cannot resist. it was very exciting to watch him and other candidates attack herman cain's 9-9-9 plan.

it is flawed in many ways, but more than the current tax system? i do not know if anything could be. but they were making the same case that his plan was bad because it would increase the burden on the middle class. the truth is -- and no one is willing to say this -- a middle- class pays a very small share of the tax burden. rich people pretty much pay for everything. i know we are not allowed to say that, i do not love rich people, but it is true. politicians never say that. host: here is a bit of the exchange about the nine-nine- nine plan. >> is the estate tax going to go away? >> no, that is an apple. we are replacing oranges. >> and governor perry was right? >> no, he was mixing apples and oranges. >> will the people in nevada

have to pay the 9-9-9 sales tax and then also have to pay the sales tax? >> you are doing the same thing. you have to pay the estate tax matter what. whether you for of the existing code and put in our plan, you still have to pay. apples and oranges. >> and i will be getting a bushel basket of apples and oranges because i will be paying for both. host: talk about mr. kane possibility to articulate his plan. guest: he was overwhelmed by the demagoguery of the exchange. the folks in nevada will have to pay both taxes. [unintelligible] of course, every person pays federal and state taxes, but half of the country does not pay federal taxes. this is such a graduated system that people in the top 20% pay

the overwhelming majority of all the taxes. where does the money go? why are we in debt? because of middle-class entitlements. medicare, social security. anybody who stands up with a straight face and says middle- class, your tax burden is too high, you are getting screwed, that person is lying. it is fine to lie to people in good times, i guess, because we can afford to, but we're getting to a place where we cannot afford to not tell the truth about where the money goes. host: upper marlboro, maryland. alex on the democrat's line. caller: i have been listening to your show. i have to admit, i did not catch the debate last night, just a couple of clips, listen to reports this morning.

i am laughing at all of these guys. none of them will hold a candle to obama in the election. like the president said the other day, you are just hearing the same old talking points over and over again. what these candidates are missing, as well as the republican machine at large, there is a large portion of the country that feels like whatever side you fall on, the extreme right or left, you have to run the country with compromise. i do not think the media is reporting on that well. obviously, congress is not getting it. i do not think any candidate that is running on a ticket of a let me follow every extreme opinion of the far right is going to win in a general election.

regardless of your opinion of president obama's policies -- i do not agree with everything on him, i voted for him, and will again. but i feel like he makes an effort to draw things to the center. the center is where the future of this nation is. that is where people want to see our leaders. host: thank you. guest: i do not think there is any evidence the president has worked to bring the debate to the center. over the next year you will see the president demonizes opponents personally, you will see the campaign imply that his opponent is a racist. that is inevitable. you will see him continue to play the culture war because he has nothing to run on. i find it distressing that the republicans cannot seem capable of producing a candidate that can articulate a clear, conservative case against president obama. i think he is beatable.

i think republicans believe that and are looking at this nomination process in grief saying, bring us someone great so that we can be obama. an absence of a good candidate, you are right, the incumbent gets reelected. host: who is the closest in the field? guest: i have mixed feelings, personally. i am pretty darn conservative. i'm always sympathetic to the candidates who are less mainstream. i have never voted for a winner. it has been a long time. i think the republican party is still an institutional party, hierarchal party, respects its elders. it will be hard to unseat mitt romney, but if there is any year to do so, it is this year.

here i am, pretending to know what i'm talking about. but if there was ever a year where something truly weird happened where and donald trump entered the race, this would be it. host: to the collar's point about going to the center. this column says in new hampshire, jon huntsman has found a compelling message. guest: he is one of the few candidates than i do not know personally. he hired one of the dumbest campaign managers in the history of american politics, in my opinion, who had him sending tweets such as, i believe

science when it comes to evolution. if you believe that, you are an npr-listening liberal. he is almost designed to make bread-winners met. a very on helpful strategy. maybe this will work. host: arlington, virginia. patrick on the republican line. caller: i have to agree with you on newt gingrich. not only is he impressive, but he has the background with balancing the budget, blocking hillary, he is articulate and he has some good ideas. he did a great job last night. take want to get tucker's -- first of all, i do think herman cain's plan is uniform, and that is what the

constitution calls for, article one, section 8. all taxes shall be uniform. plan does meet that criteria. what i wanted to talk about is, what about a reflected trade pacts, where imports and exports between china and the u.s. he called themselves? -- equaled themselves? where we and they pay the same in taxes. guest: is a complicated question. trade imbalances actually constitute a mixed blessing. clearly, it undermines american manufacturing. that is too late to revive that. that has been the sad side of our trade imbalance. but it also provides a lot of inexpensive goods that people

would not be able to afford a wise. while there is income disparity in this country, you often hear that middle-class wages have been stagnant, but in truth, the buying power of families has increased because goods are cheaper. 30 years ago, people -- people made orange juice from concentrate. they did not have five tvs in their house. goods are cheaper despite the inflation we have seen. i do not know, it is a mixed blessing. host: "the financial times" has a look at the top republican candidates, where they are getting money for their campaign. this is money raised from the financial and real-estate sectors. mitt romney, coming in at -- this is from the center for

responsive politics. what do you think? i cannot believe anybody from the insurance industry gave money to barack obama, but never underrate -- underestimate people's capacity. if you like and then to say basically and force them to sell their product to people they did not want to sell to every to could prescribe, how can you reward that? i just did not get it. you beat the dog, and he still comes in likes you. and-- and licks you. obama is going to get support from wall street. voters making over $200,000. will that happen again? host: trenton, new jersey. joe on the democrats' line. caller: hello.

good to see you. i remember you from the crossfire days. it was entertaining and a great blood pressure booster. [laughter] there are a lot of things i could talk to you about, but let's go first with taxes. use a poor people did not pay any taxes. -- you say poor people do not pay taxes. in their hundreds of americans that pay gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, tolls, other exercised -- excise taxes. property-tax cut estate tax. and add that up. how much do rich people pay and in those taxes? where do think the money is coming from to pay the tab? it is coming from the 100

million people that really pay taxes, and it is not the top 1 percent signed. no. two, you really did not understand how science works. you come to a conclusion based on evidence. i will see what you have to say. thank you. guest: i am not sure i can address your point on science, because i think i do understand of the principle of the fact that i did not understand your point about it, so i will leave that at addressed. on the tax question, you are right. i was pointing to federal income taxes, which topped the country does not pay. the government at all levels hit two and a million different ways -- hits you with about a million different ways. the plant site is there are a lot of federal benefits -- the flip side is there are a lot of federal benefits.

so about half the country is net dependent on the government, and that is a striking statistic to me, because when you receive more than you put in, you do not actually have skin in the game, and that has implications for how we elect people into we elect, and i hink it is a rally on a misseay autonomoomnimous sign. i think -- i have a moral problem with it. we're all citizens, and we should all pay the same rate. why should one minority group, rich people, why should one unpopular minority group, simply because it is small and unpopular shoulder a disproportionate burden? i think it is wrong. host: "the wall street journal"

takes a look at senate 2012 politics. guest: it is a great piece, and there are a number of others suddenly pretty moderate democrats that do not want obama to visit their district. he is about as conservative as you can be as a democrat, and i think he seems like a good guy. i would say that peace might overdrawing it a little bit. he does criticize obama. he would not be photographed with him publicly. he spends a lot of time distancing himself from obama. he ran the last ad shooting a gun, i think. which i loved. we need more guns and political ads. -- in political ads. i think if you look at voting

records as distinct from more of the cosmetic manifestations, you will see a lot of democrats are still faithful democrats. host: you had a clear casco as well. and ben nelson. -- you highlight claire mc caskill. guest: the controversy about the pay off he accepted for a time, provisionally accepted from the white house, it makes it unlikely he will get reelected, and it is a shame, because ben nelson is a good guy and a smart person and pretty moderate. by the way, you want and i want moderate democrats. you do not want every democrat to be liberal. not everyone can be a hard core ideologue.

it is good to the people that meet in the middle. increasingly they are losing. host: what would dussek going back to the presidential candidates about conservatives? guest: there's no question. in this race, and this year, whoever will challenge barack obama needs to get the ratification, when the votes of republican primary voters, and they're really do not like obama and pretty darn conservative, and so it does not make any sense to give them the finger. john weaver who is running this, i guess you call it a campaign that is running huntsman's campaign does not get that. all of my prognostication is for naught. i am always wrong in my predictions. i lose money every year, but i would still but, since i am very

optimistic person, i do think democrats will lose control of the senate. i would say our margin of 3-5. i think some of these candidates are very hard to hang on. i think it is because the nature of the state. the states have moved a lot since 2008. host: ben on the republican line from grafton, maryland. caller: glad to see you on, tucker. and i hear everyone say herman cain is not electable. i like the nine-nine-nine plan, because the 9% sales tax will bring in all the black market money, all the pimps, hookers. they will start to pay some taxes. no. two, bush was a moderate. he did the prescriptions for the elderly and tarp.

republicans cannot afford to send another mitt romney moderate. moderates have gone us where we are out. guest: i would not say there is anything moderate about the prescription drug program. i thought it was pretty radical. it was a huge expansion of a federal entitlement, and that is not moderate, that is radical. you may be for it or against it, but it is not a baby step. it is a leap to the left. bush never got the credit he deserved for that. it is sustained, in my opinion, on the record. it it makes a very hard for republicans to look into the camera and say we're the party of fiscal responsibility. it is a major plot on bublot o' record.

host: next phone call. caller: you are talking about the president's debate. it seems to me the problem with the debate is a bunch of politicians get together and what they want to do is put chests up and nottheir own come up with solutions. and my other problem with social security and medicaid is that is my money and would like to have the back. guest: a lot of people feel that way for sure. that is the central problem with the program. a lot of people feel like they have are repaid in to the apparel tax. a lot of people do pay into payroll tax. if it was simply a case of you put money into an account to draw against when you get old or sick, the system would be

solvent. that is not the case at all. when about illness and you have eaten up one -- one bad illness and you have eaten up what you put in many times. if you say that out loud, people freak out. they will not vote for you. the elderly pay you. these are highly-popular programs. again, that is why they're so expensive. welfare reform is really easy. reducing payments to poor people. what are they going to do about it? they do not vote consistently. they are not a powerful bloc in american life. eliminating or paring down or controlling the growth of middle-class entitlement programs that are driving us to insolvency, that is apparently beyond the power of any politician i've ever met. it is pathetic. host: mr. carlson, how can you

be serious about balancing the budget if you refuse to raise revenues is the next week for you. -- the next tweet for you. guest: i am including the bush tax cut, do you notice a mass sive drop in tax revenues or of increase in tax spending? it is later. i did not think anyone argues that tax increases are stimulative if people are out of work. i think it seems irresponsible, but even as a flat out math question, we have raised a lot of money. we just spend more. host: sterling heights, michigan. kevin on the republican line. caller: i appreciate your show, and i always like when your

attacker carlsson on. i want to state that i think the problem to republican party has had for a long time is they're not able to clearly define the conservatism, and why conservatism works better in the political system than liberalism does. we keep putting moderates up to have the tendency to adopt liberal ideas. clean energy is one and illegal aliens are another. we put these candidates up better try to create ideas, and it does not work out. people are not comfortable voting for them. i think the beauty of ronald reagan was that he was able to clearly define what conservative was and why it work in white was a better system, and i believe if we get a canada can do that, we will win the next election. guest: i agree. thank you. conservatism is a tougher sell

than liberalism. who doesn't want to except free help? everyone does. it is built in. it is human nature. conservatism is an intellectual case that is a much harder thing to sell, and the basic proposition is slow down, do not do that. do not consume not. wait until tomorrow. put off instant gratification for long-term rewards. it really is a case you have to bake. you have to explain it to people. -- it really is a case you have to make. host: a few more minutes with our guest. birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning. please let me make my point. the this case in this respect to how for poor people -- distate and disrespect for poor people

-- it is so sad how many people are living in poverty right now, and it is not because of barack obama. it is because this has been coming for a long time. this has been a long time coming. i do not like the fact that you just dismiss poor people do not vote. let me tell you something, that breaks my heart. african-americans have to go through so much to be able to vote. let me just say, i was not attacking poor people, if anything i was defending them. i was kind of on your side. as to barack obama cannot be held responsible for anything because he is jesus, that is you and your pastor. the fiscal problems we have are the result of pandering to the

middle class, me, you, the middle class, the bulk of americans that have been told again and again by both parties, you are under assault, we will protect you, you deserve this, that, in the other thing. politicians are raised the expectations to heights that are unsustainable. that is the problem. host: if the president said there are similar themes happening for the occupy wall street movement and the tea party. what do you think of the argument? guest: there is a lot of wining and general in america. the main reason i am not liberal is i hate miniwhining. i cannot stand to hear another hine the american win

about anything. i am very sympathetic to the aims of the tea party. rather than just good to work and live your life and improve the fortune of your family, to get out industry in wave some dumb signed? i reject that. the first thought i have is don't these people have jobs? how can you complete your poor if you are not working? you're standing in the street and yelling at people. that does not prosperity make on either side. host: one more call. last call from augusta, georgia. caller: i would like to say on the disability and medicare, i would like to know the jobs bill -- host: she was trying to address

the jobs bill i believe. guest: the jobs bill has no support on the hill. almost no support from democrats. the white house knew from day one this never had a possibility of passing. last week there was not one democratic co-sponsor of the house version, not one. this is fantasy land. this has nothing to do with passing laws on the hill, which is right next to us. it has everything to do with the president making a rhetorical case for his reelection, which is republicans are mean and probably racist and against me for their own and rash a their own irrational rea host: before you go, tell our viewers about the daily call. guest: i am an editor, but not agree speller. i want to think of microsoft corporation for making spelling

easy for me. we have dozens of reporters who are constantly updating the site. there's new content on the site every seven minutes or something. it is one of the largest new sites on the web. host: your front page dealing with last night's debate. guest: yes, we a couple of reporters out there in vegas. host: thank you. we will look at a public agency that oversees big banks. that is part of our spotlight on the magazine section. that discussion right after this update. >> we reported last hour the social security administration would announce an increase of 3.5% for next year. the administration has announced a raise, and a cost- of-living adjustment brings the raise to 3.6% effective next year. the numbers in this hour from the labor department show consumers paid more for food and gas last month, rising 0.3% in

september, below the 0.4% rise of august, but economists expect price increases to moderate as weak growth lowers commodity prices. home building up 15% in september, the fastest pace in 17 months. still, that is roughly half of 1.2 million and economists say is needed for a healthy housing market. turning to the global economy, a two-day general strike in greece has begun around -- against a new round of austerity measures. at least 7000 protesters have gathered in athens. police being pelted with garbage. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> because i am a businessman, of which i am incidently very proud and formally connected with a large company, but

opposition have attempted to picture meet as the opponent of liberalism, but i was a liberal before many of those men heard the word, and i fought for the reforms of roosevelt and woodrow wilson before another roosevelt adopted and distorted the words liberal. >> a member of the democratic party for over 40 years. he sought and won the republican nomination for president, and although he lost the election, he left his mark on political history. speaking out for civil rights and becoming a foreign ambassador for his former component, wendell roosevelt. "the contenders" friday at 8:00 eastern. >> this weekend, six republican presidential candidates travel to des moines for the i what base and freedom coalition candidates forum. watch our live coverage of

herman cain, newt gingrich, rick perry, and ron paul and sho michelle bachmann. host: every wednesday at this time we take a spotlight on magazines, and this week our guest, yalman onaran, a senior writer for "bloomberg business week." thank you for joining us. let's start with finding out a little bit more about this person you focus in on this week's. your story has a photograph of him, and also the title " er's undertaker.k " guest: he sells the assets that

can be sold and winds down these failing institution. now he is heading a new agency, new department at the federal deposit and insurance corp. called office complex of financial institutions. what he has to do is make sure the largest banks in the u.s., top 22 banks, are not doing things that will get them into trouble, and did they get into trouble, then he will do what he did with the smaller banks. host: let's step back. when you talk about largest bank, what defines a large bank? guest: under dodd-frank law, which passed last year, his office is responsible for banks that are bigger than $100 billion in assets, and that is 22 banks right now. we know a lot of those names like citibank and bankamerica

and wells fargo, and also foreign banks that are based in europe like deutsche bank and hsbc. host: you said he looks at them specifically to monitor them to see if they get in trouble. what does get in trouble me in that instance? trouble mean in that instance? guest: they monitor these. they have comptroller's of the bigger banks and monitor what they do. the make sure their risks they take are not outside risk, but the fdic will now have additional people who are going to make sure the complexity, and what they mean by complexity is these organizations have so many different units and businesses, and they are global and all over

the place, so now they will make sure that when the men failed in 2008, there were so many different pieces -- lehman brothers failed in 2008, there were so many different pieces -- now this office will make sure all of the different pieces are part of the equation that regulators are looking at. host: so it of bank is feeling, sees it isggggend failing, he recommends the bank should be drawn down. does he have the direct power to do that, or does he report to someone else to make that happen? guest: he does not have the full authority to make that happen. the fdic gets together and decide for the bank is in trouble and should be seized, so it does not threaten the rest of the financial system, but they need approval from the treasury

secretary, and that is one of the aspects of the resolution power it has come up because it needs approval. if you look at history, politicians are usually not in favor of taking over nationalizing big banks. we look to do the same thing just recently during a 2008 crisis. a lot of big banks were in trouble, but a lot of politicians prefer to build them out. although this new institution is supposed to end to big to fail, as long as there is political approval required, people say that might not work. host: we will learn more about this agency with our guest yalman onaran, the author of a book called "zombie banks." if you want to ask him questions --

if you want to send an e-mail and ask a question of of twitter, it is c-spanwj. clarence on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i would like to -- good morning. the people that [inaudible] guest: i could not understand -- host: quit listening to the television come and go ahead with your question. caller: why are we paying people that make mistakes, the bankers,

money, extra money to -- guest: we will leave it there. let's move on to lake of the ozarks, missouri. sean democrats line. caller: i was just wanting to know if the white house did not bail out the banks, would he not have a better chance of setting all the regulations? host: would do not have a better chance? -- would who not have a better chance? caller: did that give him a chance in setting those regulations? guest: you mean if the white house did not bail out the banks, with the new regulations be formed better? host: i think that is what he is asking. we have lost him, but go ahead.

guest: of course bailing out the banks and then allowing the banks to use the tax payer to continueney lobbying, some critics say that made it harder for congress to pass laws that would restrict risk-taking in the future. so in theory, if the banks were not billed out, that would have weakened the political power, and they could not have lobbied as much against their roles that were aimed to restrict their risks and threat to financial system, but that is what happened. they were content -- a vow to continue lobbying. dodd-frank was shipped with the lobbying going on -- was shapped

with the lobbying going on. if you ask mr. dodd and barney frank, they think they have done a great job. host: 1000 oaks california. republican line. todd, your next. and caller: this is based on history. after the stock market crashed in 1929, it took our government five months to come up with a solution. that solution became the foundation for the banking system. for the first time it was recognized commercial banks and investment banks were separate industries failing under the same plant. the solution was to break the bank said. the fdic to oversee the investment banks. -- the solution was to break the banks up. host: what is your question?

caller: on november 12, 1999, president clinton signed into law the biggest change since the great depression. data shows from 1933-1999 the fdic had losses of 200 billion. host: todd, i have to butt in. thank you for the history context, but what is your question? caller: why did they recreate the same banks we had during the great depression and expect a different result? guest: a lot of people have criticized the dismantling of the classical act -- last legal act.s-stegal it is hard to tell. deregulation was definitely responsible, but it was not the only dismantling of it.

there were other parts of the regulation, such as the attempt to regulate at all, derivatives, a market that reach 700 trillion dollars in 2008. reached 700 trillion dollars in 2008. that was considered a great innovation. the ending of it has been blamed for the banks getting too big and failing and creating a global crisis, but there are other deregulation moves that were responsible. dodd-frank did not bring it back, and there was some debate about not enough. there were proponents of bringing it back and separating domestic banking from commercial

banking, but that is not what came out at the end. host: a follow up from matt smith on twitter -- guest: that is a very tough question. it is a great question, of course, and i have written a lot about dodd-frank as it was being formulated and since it has been implemented. there are still parts of their being implemented as we speak. they are drawing the detailed technical rules that will help implement dodd-frank. it has some great safeguards. it is not completely empty, but the main issues that really caused the crisis, were they really addressed? i think the jury is still out. i talked to so many people as i was writing my book this past year, starting in february, and most of the people i talked to,

they are not sure the risk has been curtailed. instead a lot of people think their risks have been shifted and we're going to get hit by the rest anyway. risks anyway. guest: "zombie banks" was a term that was used in the 1980's. there were rescued the way we rescued our banks. they were allowed to live, and they should have died. they were dead banks walking. my book argues we still have in europe and in the u.s. we have banks that should have failed that were bailed out, and they are still causing the system, the global financial system, to be in crisis, and that is why

the crisis is not going away. that is my theory. host: yalman onaran, senior writer for "bloomberg business week." there is a graphic in your book for what it is called when you have to wind down a smaller bank washington mutual. could you give our folks an idea of the process that would be involved to wind down one of the big banks? guest: washington mutual was not that small. assets that exceeded for a hundred billion dollars. bank.s a decent-financ-sized it had one main company and three subsidiaries under it. if you look at the real complex institutions, the big

conglomerate that are involved in all conscience of financial- services such as bank of america, they have dozens and dozens of subsidiaries in units and businesses, and a lot of those are not in the united states. when one of these banks fail in need to be taken down, then this new office needs to coordinate with dozens of regulators in different countries, and then there could be bankruptcy proceedings. this is what makes winding down one of these complex institutions really complicated. host: our guest with us for another 25 minutes or so. next call is towed river, oregon. good morning. river, oregon. caller: good morning.

my question has to do with the layperson understanding the magnitude of the banking problems. i a real-estate agent certainly have felt the effects, the aftermath of the crisis, and i really do believe that this industry, the banking industry, the mortgage industry, it needs to be highly regulated, and not just left to the kind of go insane and give away money to people that should not have been given money in the first place. but that aside, is there a fix, or is it just so huge -- who will control it? does it have to be controlled at a global level? guest: it is complex, and it is

huge, and it is very global. you do make up their point. point. a fiaair they pay lip service to be global and international and coordinating, but every country tries to do their own thing. we do need more global roles, and we need a global police. we need regulators that reach are globally in manage to look at the banks and what they are doing in different countries, and they are not there. i came on c-span last two yea yo talk about bank regulations, and they were discussed by 27 countries, including the u.s. and most of the important european countries are in the committee, but even then the

agreed to areere not being implemented uniformly. everyone is doing their own thing. with the resolution, which is one of the most crucial element of keeping things under control, because when they can be taken down and dismantled, than they would be afraid to take risks, regimes areesolution raceme being implemented locally. other countries with resolution systems, they cannot work if they're not international, and that is one of the biggest weaknesses of regulating banks. host: the latest numbers from the fdic. j.p. morgan chase is 1.7 billion. bank of america at 1.5 billion. citibank at 1.2 million. wells fargo at 1.1 million. there is a story on the front page of the wall street journal.

the headline says bank of america has fallen from the no. 1 spot. can you paint this into the discussion we're having this morning? guest: my book argues the pain never really went away. since we bailed out the banks, they have not managed to get back on their feet, because they still have massive losses that are looming. we have not fix the housing market as one of our callers just pointed out. we have the big real-estate bubble that popped, but we have not really solved that problem. we still have millions of homeowners better under water and cannot pay mortgages, and we're not restructuring the debt. we have a debt overhang we are not solved, and the banks are sitting on mortgages and other loans that will not perform, but

they are pushing the problem to the future hoping they can make enough money in between these years so they can take the losses in the future. that is what i mean by zombies, they're actually dead banks walking. if we look at history, and it is not just the 1980's, but over centuries we had it when we rescued banks and have them survive when they should have been let go, that always comes back to hurt the economy and society more taxpayers and the paying much more for those losses later. host: another headline. this one in "the washington post." they are looking at what happened to lehman brothers and concerns with the european banking system and globally. guest: european banks are in great trouble, and again, if the

sovereign debt issues -- it is the sovereign debt issues that are causing the problems. there are several countries that cannot pay their debts, and the european union is pretending the problem can be just pushed to the future. a lot of banks have huge exposures to these countries that cannot pay their debts, and there is no debt restructuring, because the banks are too weak. they would fail. the government does not want to let them fail. they keep pumping money into not let them fail, but we postpone the problem, and at the end there is a big bang and then they crisis. postponing the problem has never really solved them. host: back to your original story. his job is to look for these problems that happened, and maybe prevent them from happening and take care of it if it's too late. guest: yes, his job is to look

at the biggest banks, and if they have losses, he will say this is dangerous to the system and should take over the bank. he is restrained by political conservation. the secretary has to approve that, and that means the government gets involved, and that could be an impediment to actually doing affectively what he is supposed to do. host: was the chosen by the president, or did he have to go through a confirmation process? guest: he is part of the fdic. the chairman of the ftse goes through a confirmation process. sheila bair it was a port -- appointed by the former president, she left in june or july in the middle of this year, and there is an acting chairman who will go through the confirmation process, so the

fdic as an institution is part of the decision making, and he will have to get approval from his bosses, but then there is further political approval that will have to involve the treasury secretary. host: you laugh -- you highlight the has is m.b.a. from the university of chicago. but his other degree is from the university of maryland in zoology. guest: i asked him what the connection was. he said he was interested in science early on, and then he got involved in banking, and that became his passion. host: new york. larry on the republican line. caller: i have a statement and question. first, the statement, the fdic guaranteeing the money and the

banks. they went from 100,000 to 200,000. why has no one ever been told how long it would take the government to pay in case there was a failure? that was a statement. with the banks being consolidated, what happens when the last bank is standing? thank you. guest: i am not sure i understand the last part of the question. banks dsometimes get broken up. when they fail, there are multiple ways of resolving them. with the biggest banks, breaking them up into pieces and selling the pieces is probably how it would be resolved typically, and that is what happened with lehman brothers. ithe units were sold off bankruptcy. the u.s. division, some of the u.s. divisions for brought by

barclays european division. asset management was spun off in a different way. it is not necessarily to is concentrating. there are thousands of banks in the united states and thousands around the world. they failed, they get dismantled and sold off. but there are always other banks, and you were banks, healthier banks that keep on working and functioning in fill in the gaps that are left from the banks that no longer exist. -- and newer banks, healthier banks that keep on working and functioning and fill in the gaps that are left from the banks that no longer exist. when there are banks that are bleeding losses and being propped up by government, those competitive competit

advantages against the banks that have done the right thing by not taking oversight risk in by not going for the big profits because they did not want to lose big money when the times were tough. there should be rewarded. the banks that did not make the mistake should be able to be rewarded in gain a bigger market share. -- and gain bigger market share. host: washington, d.c.. daniel on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for the guest this morning. it seems like a lot of the people calling in commenting have been furious. i personally purchased a condo or house because here in the washington area i could not see the increases of the price is being sustained 20% year on

year. my question for the guest is, how can u.s. banks and federal agencies do a better job to say something to the effect of these banks are where we're for it to fail. you will not have your deposits, except those insured. this action, while it was not perfect, it needed to be taken in order to sustain overall long-term health of the u.s. banking system. guest: i guess the question is referring to the 2008 bailout of banks, why that was necessary and what should be done. a lot of people argue that there were not necessary, that we do not have to rescue all the banks, we can let the weakest banks that fail go and still continue to have a financial system that functions, and that is one of the things of the new

resolution authority that the fdic has, it is be able to seamlessly result failing banks. that is one of the tasks that the new agency bases that they have to explain to everyone that they can dismantle banks that fail and not cause a ripple effect in the financial system. that is an important task. host: virginia. go ahead. tom on the republican line. caller: good morning. how argued this morning? i am also in the real-estate business. -- how argue this morning? i am an appraiser. i see banks still making a lot of the same mistakes they were making in many ways, worst mistakes. i do not know from my vantage point whether they are concerned about the residential assets they have or whether that attitude is they are just

managing them and more of a freddie mac/taxpayer problem. guest: i have heard the same thing, that banks are making the same mistakes in real-estate in mortgages. that is possible,, and that is why the new regulations are supposed to prevent that. we have one agency that is new. and another one that is called the consumer financial protection bureau, and that organization is supposed to look at how mortgages are created and sold and marketed, and a intoowers are not duped products they do not want, because that is what happened in the subprime markets, people that could not afford homes were being sold mortgages and saying you can do this, and they were believing they could come in when the practice started falling, they lost their homes

and it was not fair to paint it that way. we have also new safeguards that are supposed to protect that, but you are on the field and seeing that, and perhaps they're not working that well or perhaps they're not up to speed yet and will work in the future. host: our guest, yalman onaran. what requires the big banks to cooperate with the federal government? guest: what requires them? , andre highly regulated the deposit insurance, they have to follow rules to make sure their deposits are insured. they have to follow rules so they can have access to the funds when they need it, when there is liquidity issues. banking is one of the most highly-regulated businesses in the world, not just in the west, but everywhere. that is because banking has been

one of the biggest of the timber resources -- sources of volatility. and have caused more crises than any other industry. when car makers faimakers fail,t bring down the whole system, but financials are the backbone of the whole economy. without lending and borrowing and banking activities the economy cannot function. that is wide banking needs to be more regulated, and that is why banks follow those rules. -- that is why banking needs to be more regulated, and that is why banks follow those rules. those are called the living wills, and they are very crucial to what this new office is supposed to do. there are multiple deadlines, it depends on the size of the bank, but the topic is banks, bigger than $450 billion are supposed to turn in their living wills in

middle of next year, and then they are staggering deadline that go on until the end of the following year, 2013. including even the foreign banks that i was mentioning at the beginning that operate in the u.s. if they are big enough to fall into this category, they have to have a living will that explained how they could be wind down if they fail. how units are connected to each other, how the different businesses interrelate with each other, and those blueprints hopefully will help the office to wind down a failing bank. nd t: it will be james wiggin that approves those plans? guest: yes. they look at all these plans and make sure the plans make sense,

that there are not holes in the blueprints that it looks like it would be too complicated to wind the bank down. if they reject them, they ask the banks to come up with a better formula, or they even have the authority to request the bank to change certain businesses, to divest from certain businesses that look like it would be impossible to wind down and if they're getting into trouble. in hohost: lincoln, texas. mark on the democrat line. caller: you are a very interesting guest. -- martha of the democrats' line. and back in 2000 when george bush was elected, what difference did it make that there was legislation signed immediately thereafter to deregulate credit defaults what bundles? he ended up being vice president

of united swiss bank. why doesn't anyone look into that more, because i think that is when it started personally. guest: we talked about this earlier when the calller was talking about the ending of glass-steagall, which was done during president clinton's term. deregulation was one of the biggest culprits. it was not the only one. there were multiple stages of it. one of them was getting rid of glass-stegall. the other thing you mentioned that is true, and that was done under bush was the last 20 years under democratic and republican administration, banks have been deregulated. they were allowed to do almost everything they could do, and that involves getting into derivatives in writing

derivative contracts that reached 700 trillion dollars worldwide. that is a staggering number. that is 10 times the global gdp. how can we gamble so much with money that the global economy does not even have? your right, it was going on for two decades, and that clearly was very fundamental reason, one of the fundamental reasons for the crisis. host: quick response to this. jon huntsman has an op ed talking about his idea for winding down banks. he said congress should explore reforms being considered by the u.k. to make the unwinding of the biggest banks less risky. it could impose a fee to exceeds the gdp and cover the cost it would impose on taxpayers for a bailout.

congress could also implement tax reform that eliminate the deduction for interest payments that gives preference to debt over equity. guest: one of those, the fee on the biggest banks that would be imposed, that was part of the dodd-frank proposal, but it was opposed so strongly by republicans it had to be taken out, because the democrats needed republicans to pass the bill. so that was discussed here, and that was one of the solutions. the resolution authority that he needs was going to have a special fund that was funded by the biggest banks in case they were being wound down and the money would not come from taxpayers, but that did not pass. instead what it does is it does happen and they need to put in

money, they will collect that kind of -- the money they spent from the biggest banks after a failure. the other one about debt over equity, that is an argument made over and over and has been discussed many times before, thatse one of their riske risks bring big banks down is they do not have enough equity. the shareholders take the losses. if you have enough shareholders, you can still survive it. if you borrow too much money, you have to pay back debts, and if you default, you are bankrupt. that has more tax advantages. you can deduct interest you pay on taxes, and not just the u.s. but around the world pretty much.

that makes it more advantageous for not just banks, but a lot of other types of firms. maybe changing that will lower what we call leverage. it probably would. it is not wrong to discuss that, and that is one of options guy could be brought back on the table. host: massachusetts. eddie on the republican line. if you could just jump in with the question. caller: i do not think you make of this is enough about the subprime there was only 5 percent signed subprime. soon after it went to almost 30%. that was a disaster to the banks. oil went to $100 per barrel and everything collapsed. guest: i did mention subprime earlier, and that was one of the biggest problems, because banks

were peddling the mortgages to everybody, saying you did not even need an income, you can just borrow money, we will give you all the money you want. do not even have to of a down payment. as long as housing prices go up, you will be fine. and they were fine. even subprime borrowers who could really only afford a trickle of their income to pay for their mortgage payment, they could refinance constantly and not have to worry about really paying back their debts, because prices were going up, but the problem is prices do not always go up. it shows how the prices once in awhile stop going up and they fall. when these kinds of ponzi schemes come tumbling down, and that is the problem we have. host: one more call from john in vermont. caller: