reporters eric shmitt and thom about the u.s. campaign against al-qaeda. later, albert teich from the american association for the advancement of science on funding for research and development. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: on this monday morning, a man who would like to occupy the white house, herman cain, -- that says two women accused him of inappropriate behavior. the cain campaign blames washington establishment critics, saying they are eager to bring down mr. cain, who is doing well and opinion polls and fund raising. we are following around watch -- him around washington today. we will see him as early as 9:00 a.m. eastern at the american enterprise institute on c-span2.

we wanted to about the story and what it might mean for the campaign. we have a separate line just for herman cain supporters this morning. we want to hear your thoughts, of course, about the breaking story and the push back by the cain campaign. here is the story as it broke in politico last night. we are taking it off the web. they call it an exclusive. two women accused herman cain of inappropriate behavior. you can see a picture of the candidate here. it was when he was head of the american restaurant association in the 1990's. the text says --

as is the story as it was first brought by politico. lots of other folks writing about this as a follow up this morning. jonathan martin joins us on the phone. he is with politico. one of the several reporters that have been working on this story.

how exactly did this come about? tell us about your reporting. guest: thank you for having me. we have been reporting the story for the last three weeks or so. during that period of time we have talked to dozens of individuals. we have about half a dozen sources on these actual allegations themselves. current employees, former employees of the organization, current and past members of the board, as well as sources who are close to this washington trade group. two female employees in the late 1990's when mr. cain was the ceo, were uncomfortable and angry about a series of verbal and physical gestures toward them that were of a suggested nature, so much so that they went to colleagues and senior officials at the organization to complain about the treatment. these women subsequently

received five figure cash payouts to late -- leave the organization. as part of that, they signed non-disclosure agreements so they would not discuss what happened. we have seen documentation in one of these cases, that give the allegations and that the organization formally resolve the matter. hopefully that gives you a sense of a carefully reported piece that was done with extensive sourcing on obviously a sensitive topic. but that is this view. host: a lot of folks going -- doing a lot of the reporting of the push back. what are they saying question on guest: we gave them 10 days to respond. initially the response was that these allegations were "resolve -- i am sorry, resolved by the

parties years ago. i pressed to the campaign what exactly was resolved, but the spokesman says he, the spokesman, talk to mr. cain and mr. cain vaguely recalled, and suggested they talk to was then and now the general counsel of the restaurant association. that was for a few days the response. we went to him at the organization. he would not comment. finally, yesterday i went to the cbs washington bureau in downtown d.c. and asked mr. cain directly about the allegations. he did not respond. he was asking for more information, and names. i gave him one of the names involved. he would not comment. then i asked very directly -- sir, have you ever been accused

of sexual harassment? he did not answer the question. i asked him three more times. have you ever been accused of sexual harassment? he would not say, no. host: written up in politico, politico.com. we are speaking to jonathan martin, one of the reporting team. mr. cain had been planning lots of stops in washington today. we are going to be covering him at the american enterprise institute at 9:00 on c-span2 talking about his 999 tax plan. we will also cover him at the press club later ron at 1:00 here on c-span2. how do you expect the events to come out? guest: even if it is not act the actual event, i am sure it is going to come up at some point. either on the way into the event or leaving. again, the campaign had 10 days to respond to some very straightforward questions about our reporting involving these

two women. and they did not answer. and mr. cain himself did not answer a very basic question, have you ever been accused of sexual harassment or not. we could not get an answer. we published our story last night after having reported it over a period of weeks and talking extensively to dozens of individuals. host: what do you think this does to the campaign at this point? guest: obviously mr. cain has questions to insert. we try to get answers for a period of 10 days. perhaps now he will be more forthcoming. but certainly, there is going to be intense scrutiny on him going forward, like there is on all serious candidates for the white house. the american people want to know who these candidates are, they want to know their backgrounds. host: jonathan martin of politico, thank you for sharing time with us. guest: thank you so much. host: a little bit of the

follow-up reporting, this from "the washington post" today. cain camp denies harassment allegations. they say he is pushing back against these allegations that he engaged with -- in inappropriate behavior when he was the head of the national restaurant association. here are a couple of passages from the piece --

that is from the campaign. the first caller on all of this, maryland. bryce, independent caller. caller: i think regardless of whether or not it is true or substantiated, i think herman cain has to get scrutinized more, and as he has more questions asked about his plans and his agenda, i think he will gradually take himself down out of the race anyway. i don't see him carrying any more than 10% in any state in the primaries. i just think as the nation sees him, asks questions, get to know him more, he is not to be president. and the machine going after --

unfortunately, that is part of the political landscape and part of what any candidate has to deal with. host: bob is a cain supporter in pittsburgh. what do you make of what you are reading and hearing? caller: this is nonsense. i was a superintendent of a shock. there was a black fellow, he could not learn anything and then i counseled him, he started coming in late. i called up human-resources and they said just write it up and don't do anything right now. finally it came out as a racial problem. they settled the case to say it go away. i quit over that because i was frustrated. i have gotten rid of that before for doing stuff like this. i wrote them up, but because he was glad they did not press the case with human-resources. they gave him money to go away. that is what a lot of these people do when they work for somebody. they try to find something. they always find somebody to

agree. host: are you a cain supporter? bring it back to the candidate. caller: i think he is an honorable man, i think he is smart. i think he is more intelligent than anybody running, including barack obama. he has been a success all his life. he went to college without affirmative action. everything that he earned he got. i trust him more than anybody i see on the scene right now. host: marietta, georgia. a bill is on the line for democrats. what do you make of this story? the low -- hello? you there? . t's try akron, ohio caller: yes. this herman cain died, if you want to know who he is, you have to go back to ronald reagan -- this herman cain guy. what ronald reagan did was go in to mississippi to basically gain the black vote.

that is what republicans do. he also granted amnesty for the mexican vote. he jumped in bed with the jerry falwell to get the lunatic fringe a vote. -- limits infringe -- loovis six friends rode. if you look at the republican party today, they create the job a plumber guy. so, they create all of these people through the media and they basically create these people out of nothing. if you look at herman cain, he worked for the koch brothers on their payroll. and if you look at the tea party, again, the republican party is based on racism. it is the south. it is going back to the civil war.

so, what they do is fox news -- general lack even helped promote -- general electric helped promote this guy. why would general of electric, so-called liberal democrats? so they could create the illusion that this guy is of legitimate. he has absolutely no legitimacy -- host: want to get some other voices. we are following up on this "politico" report. they call it an exclusive. thing two women accused herman cain of inappropriate behavior back in the 1990's. there is the story. we just spoke to one of the reporters, jonathan martin, to explain how they came about. national, tennessee -- nashville, tennessee. caller: you have to look realistically. herman cain has been married to the same woman for 40 years, and

the executive and i high position, they're always going to be parasites trying to get a free bubp. it is kind of becoming clear in the campaign that the worship -- warship of the politico is basically a mouthpiece of the democrats socialist party and this is really just a media- driven fight, high tech luncheon. reminiscent to what happened to clarence thomas who has been a great supreme court justice. the liberals in this country cannot stand a strong, self- made, conservative black man. it just absolutely infuriates them up to the point where you get articles like this and defaming a man who has really had an amazing life. self-made millionaire. head of a pizza chain.

chairman of the federal reserve, and very successful radio talk- show host. host: here is "the washington post," a printed version. campaign pushes back on account of alleged inappropriate behavior. this is in the first section of "the post" today. and "the washington times" also picking up in the story that broke into "politico" last night. they say the cain campaign promptly denied the charges late sunday night. good morning, it is john online for democrats. caller: how are you today? it's good doing fine. caller: i am an all time common- sense democrat and i tell you the liberal wing of this party

started dragging things down when mr. clinton got in there with the whole law wednesday -- lewinski, jennifer flowers. talking about allegations. what if you did allegations of steve jobs? until something is proven -- i actually like this fellow, even though i am a democrat. they are trying to pretty much gang up on him and taken out. host: we will be covering up herman cain evans. 9:00 a.m., on c-span2, he is at aei, 999 discussion about his tax plan. the press club, at 1:00 p.m. eastern time, we will have that on c-span. one event on c-span2 at 9:00 in the next one on c-span at 1:00. he is touring washington today talking about policy and why he would make a good president of the united states. in the meantime, there is this "politico" story.

1 tweet asks simply -- centerfeld, florida. in march, independent. caller: it does not surprise me. number one, i do respect "politico" and their reporting and i do not believe they would put out anything without the early investigating it. a few weeks ago i met mr. cain at the "barnes and noble" -- barnes and noble book signing at the villages. as a woman -- i am 45 years old. and i do feel there is a -- women in government and corporate america. just the feeling i got when i met mr. cain, i could tell there was something about it. and i got the impression that he was doing this book and threw

his hat in the ring, and it is all for personal gain. i do think that the news reporting, the mainstream media, is a j.d. he is taking away from the tree candidates such as ron paul, gary johnson, and especially buddy roemer. i appreciate you letting me talk. host: let us move to barbara at southern pines, north carolina. republican. what do you make of this? caller: i am truly disappointed in c-span that i don't remember you going after john edwards when any of these stories came out about him. -- one think "politico" of the women that they got this information, wasn't it anita hill? host: anything else? in the good that is it. host: bonnie from michigan.

the wellhead. caller: we had the same problem at ford motor co. in 15 years ago. if there are two women complaining, there are 20 who have not complained. i think what is most of the can is his campaign that the inability to address the issue effectively, which shows it is not a good campaign. this is a problem we have in the workplace that we have failed to resolve. i am hearing the same old canard that it is just women taking advantage of it. nonsense, it is a problem in the american workplace. host: lots of other political news. this from herman cain. back to "the washington times." emphatically against abortion with no exception. the right here that -- they write here that --

the headline here says cain emphatically against abortion was no exception. east bridgewater, massachusetts. caller: i agree with the man from tennessee. he hit the nail on the head. these liberal democrats, they are gimme people.

they want to give everything away. they don't want to see anybody, white or black, work. they don't like the self-made millionaire that mr. cain is. it is aggravated -- keep sowing people. the woman in michigan about women being discriminated against. i was on the fire department, the first woman became on, the first thing she did was file a lawsuit against 11 of us. they go on theirth onere -- they go on there to get a lawsuit. the women -- their places in the home to take care of men. host: jerome, republican. caller: i think it is a bunch of crap, first and foremost. those democrats, they are so worried about somebody else, what is going on in somebody else's past life? why are they getting the illegal

votes from aliens? they never talk about that, right? they never talk about the $4.2 billion that these illegals get in tax loopholes. why don't they focus on that? they got a strong black man like myself that is going to speak their mind and they are terrorizing them. please. host: marietta out once again. bill on the line for democrats. caller: i got cut off earlier. i am sorry. i think it is a whole joke. i agree with only the first caller. i believe in the second amendment, i am a liberal, i am a black guy. what i am really concerned about is the police departments coming out in full armor and automatic weapons and firing tear gas. i did not see anyone throwing tear gas back. new york is a city where you

can't even own a gun and most of the cops are buying illegal guns and probably using them to shoot citizens. we should get back on track with getting people back to work and hoping that these kids don't start bringing weapons and stuff like some knucklehead did in atlanta at the occupy organization -- one guy. but i am for the president. i am looking forward to a second term with a bunch of democrats and house and senate. host: let's hear from barry on the republican line from north carolina. what is your reaction to the "politico" story? >> , my first thing about cain is i just -- caller: well, my first thing about cain -- this story is basically just to get the american people to run around like a dog chasing its tail. they will never catch the story. it is just a way to run around and get confused.

but what it all boils down to is what the politics the way it is -- now, it's his father is the way republicans are doing things now because they are -- it just bothers me the way republicans of doing this now because they are doing reverse psychology. democrats are on the black the with the >> so what we are doing is bring cain and use him to make use some reverse psychology so now of any democrat says anything now they are racist. anybody who is in politics anyway comes from a pool of people who have been loyal to corporations, and when their number comes up they have opportunities to get thrown that way like cain. here is on the national scene and he gets to appear that he has power when really the power players are behind the scenes. nobody will ever see them. host: front page of "the dredge report -- "the drudge report."

a picture from "face the nation." pointing out the weekend poll concerns of -- as concerns iowa. it says -- here is a rick perry story from "the new york times."

he is retooling his campaign with a newly and phatic anti- washington message -- more on politics in the papers in a couple of minutes but a couple more callers first. kankakee, illinois. what do you make of the herman cain stored? caller: i am confused with all of the comments that have been said. a first of all, i really do believe that "politico" would not report anything unless they know about their sources. just answerr. cain the question? i was always taught if you did something, if you are trying to hide, ok, i am embarrassed, i shall not have done it, whatever. yes, i did it. it was a mistake.

4 give me. let's move on. if he did do it, if he did do it, and he is evading the question, he is guilty. that is how i feel. host: iowa -- what is your name? hello, iowa. you are calling on the democratic line. go-ahead. caller: i just wanted to make a comment to a lady that called and said about john edwards -- they did, because i remember when the story broke in 2008, accused him of having a child. but also, i visited your bus on cnn -- yes, the c-span bus. it was very interesting. host: go ahead and finish up. caller: anyway, i just wanted to

say that i do think that he probably did do it. there is sexual harassment everywhere. there is sex anywhere. it does not make any difference what man there is. there is not going to be anybody for present. because everybody has done something. i think john edwards was framed. and to the lady that said it is close to the same thing. he did not do any sexual harassment. host: the front page of "upington post." raising cain, they write here. here is the front page. "huffington post," "drudge," almost everybody following up on this initial "politico" story. a couple of e-mails on all of this.

one other viewer writes -- let's hear from wendy in hollywood, florida. caller: i just turn the tv on. i use like to listen and use would not like to talk. but for somebody like me who is stupid about politics, it is obvious they are tried to take him down. i do not think he is qualified to be present. just like the present guy, not enough experience. thirdly, ron paul has never been accused of anything. he is pristine. it is a tragedy we did not put someone in the white house who is an older man who as wrinkles. that is what it is about. he is an old man. women in a country -- it is sad, but i have come to the conclusion that men did not like women or do not respect

women in america. if women search our hearts, we are wearing a parka -- burka. i have accepted it. it is true. host: let's move on to antonio. miami, florida. caller: good morning. what i think we need here in the states is -- are you there? host: we are listening. caller: obama -- all of these republicans who heard something out there in congress the other day at a meeting, you do not even love your kids and grandkids. all across obama government. sir, i think we should have a better americans and the

politics and politicians who know what they are doing and what they are saying. i respect the other's and everybody else. but we don't have the good politicians. and this one running for the black people, he is not going to run for nobody. he is going to run only for himself and his group. republicans. i don't like him but i will not vote for them. i will vote straight for obama. host: one of the tweet this morning. more about rick perry. he is committed to participating in at least five debates --

sorry also points out he has things to say about going to -- toto with president obama in the debates. that is in "usa today" this morning. houston, texas. tiffany, a democrat. how are you? caller: i am fine. first-time caller. i am down here in houston, texas. you could not pay me to vote for herman cain as an african- american woman. i think he is a joke. i think he is trying to sell books. it is crazy callers are trying to support him.

it is like a black man saying i know how to stay in my place. i think he is a joke on a slip. host: moving on to roanoke, virginia. david, republican. caller: my problem with the sexual harassment is it seems like it happens all the time for nothing. for instance, my father went to the air force and went to london, england, for several years and while there he met a beautiful woman who happens to be my mother. after sitting there several years he picked up the lane go, thank you, love, when he spoke to women. while working at a major company, he said the thank you, love, to everybody all the time for 30 years. after a long time, a secretary had retired and got him a new one and she came and brain injury problems something and said thank you, love. she went to his supervisor and threatens to a lawsuit.

host: you are breaking up. i think we get the point. we will move on to other calls. this is from "the washington post" which is fighting "politico." -- citing "politico." they also go on to point out over the past several weeks, since skyrocketing to the top of the field, cain has faced scrutiny over his stance on abortion, foreign-policy, his tax plan, and his management style. 9:00 a.m. he will be on c-span2 and at the press club to talk to

reporters at 1:00 eastern time for an hour here on c-span. we will do this for about 5 1/7 minutes until we bring up our first guest, grover norquist, americans for tax reform. john. independent. caller: good morning. this is the united states, and you are innocent until proven guilty. and i don't think there is any evidence to show that this gentleman did this inappropriate action. if you want to talk about inappropriate action, when you see the president as all of these meetings that he has for the state of the union, he is always kissing and hugging the ladies. i think that is an inappropriate

action. that is coming from the president of the united states. thank you very much. host: let's hear from houston, texas. caller: i believe the women are telling the truth. i have a comment about herman cain. he is like a lady called a while ago, he is only as a joke, a monkey. host: i will let you go, caller. let us move on to massachusetts. dana, republican. are you there? we will hear from dana in a moment. other news from the papers this morning. something we have been hearing about for several weeks and months. the world population has hit 7 billion people in record time. this is a "usa today" right up -- write up.

just a bit of the "usa today" piece this monday morning. "watts street journal -- "wall street journal" -- weymouth, are you there?

caller: the thing that bothers me the most about herman cain is the fact that he sat on the kansas board of the federal reserve. we can trustif anybody who sat on the federal reserve. at the other thing that bothers me about rick perry is he has been to the bilderberg group meetings. host: who do you like? caller: i like mitt romney. yampa -- host: why? caller: i trust him. i'd think he would make a good president. i think he can help straighten out the economy, get jobs, put people back to work. host: let us give your response to a comment from a white house official yesterday, the front page of "the washington times." they point out yesterday the senior advisor to the white house says mr. romney "has no

core." the talk about is changing positions on issues. what do you think? caller: i think sometimes people ask questions and they make a decision to quickly at the spur of the moment. i think he has thought about different things and reversed his opinion. and people have a right to change their opinion as long as they stick to them and don't keep changing them over and over. that is how i feel about it. and i think he would make a very good president and very much held out the country. host: here is a little bit more of the piece from "the washington times." ben wolfgang points out -- and read more about that in "the

washington times" this morning. sandra, what do you make of the herman cain story? caller: i have heard that they -- setting the liberals were the reason for this accusation. i smell rick perry on it. host: why? caller: he is trying his darndest to get to the top and he wants to bring herman cain down. that is my comment. host: appreciate your calling. "the new york times" this morning. president obama, another executive order coming out.

we will hear more about that later on in the program. one more brief peace -- piece, chase to drop dead at card fees. s. debit card feed last couple of calls. phoenix, arizona. todd, independent. how are you? caller: not too bad. i was just wondering about a few things. i was watching mr. cain in little bit and i and wondering why hasn't these young ladies come forward sooner, saying they were harassed.

i see that he is an up-and- coming candidate and i am just wondering why they have not spoken out sooner about this, immediately, when they saw him running. that is my question. host: faye is on a line from l.a., republican. caller: good morning. host: how are you? caller: i am ok. and you? host: we are doing fine. caller: as far as the sexual harassment, i think that is forthing they use politicians and candidates any way to play dirty pool. my real thing is, i don't think he is even qualified to be president. just because he is a self-made millionaire does not make him qualified to me. because really and truly, i think we disrespect our president, talking about barack obama, because what i am seeing

now this will just be -- ok, we will use the jim crow and lynch to put the black people against each other, because really and truly you don't have anybody who is capable running for president beside barack obama, because as far as him hugging and showing love, i think he is doing the same thing jesus did, all would have done. in know what i am saying? the united states is in so much trouble that dirty politics need to be pushed aside. it is not about self-made millionaires. people are suffering. we are really suffering and it is because we are so selfish that the rich are getting richer and the poor is just going to get poorer. host: ok. let's hear from ray, one last call from georgia. independent caller.

are you there? caller: yes. can you hear me? i think he gives an appearance of guilt by not coming out more emphatically when he was first approached. i think he should have got out very strongly denying its, so it just gives the appearance of perhaps being guilty, in my opinion. i do think that cain is out for himself more than he is for the country, and his aspirations are to personnel and not enough for the people. host: that was ray from georgia. look for herman cain twice, as we pointed out. first at 9:00 on c-span2, he will be at aei to talk primarily about his 999 tax plan, and at the national about 1:00 here on c-span, a speech and then the typical q&a with reporters. we will cover both live as mr. cain visits washington today. coming up in about 45 minutes we

will need the authors of this book called "counterstrike: the untold story of america's secret campaign against al qaeda." eric shmitt and thom will answer your questions. we will turn to taxes and the next couple of minutes. over northwest -- grover norquist from americans with tax reform. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i think the odds are the super committee, if it comes up

with recommendations, which i think it will, but it did come up with recommendations -- recommendations on a deficit- reduction it will include proposals related to auction the spectrum. >> i look at key telecommunications issues, including spectrums sales, net neutrality -- neutrality, and fcc's to read director universal service fund to provide internet to underserved areas. on "the communicators" at 8:00 p.m. on c-span2. >> the heat is on. this is the first time i have seen in my long tenure in politics where the heat, the real heat -- because of these guys can't come up with something and want to this great chopping the one, they will not want to go on. >> the deficit reduction committee will hear from former senators alan since an anti bemidji and former officials erskine bowles and alice rivlin, who all participated in passed deficit reduction talks. if you can watch a video of the meetings as well as the deficit,

the's four public meetings online at the c-span video library. watch what you want, when you want. >> every weekend, let the c-span network to be your source for public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. on c-span, politics and public affairs events. c-span2 has book tv with the latest nonfiction books and authors. an american history to be on c- span freeing, showcasing the people and events that shaped our country. and all of our programs are available anytime at the c-span video library. the c-span networks, it is washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. atr.org. thank you for coming back. the timing is especially interesting, not just what the debt committee but halloween.

guest: exactly. host: and we are right in the middle of a presidential campaigns. what do you like so far in the gop side? guest: all of them have taken the pledge, a commitment to their citizens that they would vote against any effort to raise taxes, or veto any effort. with the exception of huntsman, the former governor of utah. he has not taken a pledge but the plan he put forward is revenue neutral. so, his plans are not to raise taxes. he just will not put it in writing. but all the others have, and i think the good news is they are all moving toward taxing income one time at one rate. this is what cain says he wants to do -- he's got this sort of complicated 999 transition, but ultimately wants to go to a single rate tax of consumed income. that a the exactly what rick perry has put forward, former governor mitt romney of massachusetts has more of a nibbling at the edges but moving

in that same direction toward taxing income one time at one rate. so, there is emerging consensus among republicans that tax rates are too high. people are talking about something between 20% to 25% as the lower rate. and i think that is helpful. it is good to have that kind of general consensus. host: at the same time, "the new york times" lead editorial says flat taxes and angry voters. they say by wide margins americans are telling pollsters they want a tax system that raises more money and is more fair by asking the rich to pay more -- guest: "the new york times" is choosing the polls a wants to listen to. new polling also shows two- thirds of the american people nobody should pay more than 20%

as the top rate. that actually goes back to the 1940's where very few people think anyone should pay more than 25% of their income to the government in taxes. so, it depends how you ask the questions. i think the good news is what rick perry has put forward, it is an alternative system that he did not have to go into. it is a great plan but i think the insight -- the political insight is, if you are happy with the present system, and a low income person who gets a rebate may not well wish to move to a cleaner and low-grade but fewer deductions and credits and so on. somebody who is older and retired might not wish to move. somebody organizes their life around the tax code, know what is deductible and what is not, they say they do not want to change anything. he says, fine, we will set up an alternative system. if you like where you are, stay there. if you want to move to a 20%, no

gas tax, get rid of capital gains tax, corporate and individual rates lower -- no death tax. it is up to you to make the decision. i did whatever kind of reform in may, it is wise to have it as a malt -- an alternative. i think that idea of perry's is extremely helpful. host: the numbers are on the bottom of the screen for grover norquist. we will get to your calls. i want to mention, we have been mentioning the american enterprise institute event, 9:00 a.m. on c-span2, herman cain and others will talk about mr. cain's 999 plan. one of those others will be him pencil. he will be added over the weekend. if you want to see more come 9:00 a.m. on c-span2. take a listen and look at mr. cain talk about his plan and then we will come back and talk to you about it. >> here are two of the features my competitors did not get to when they did not read the plan.

number one, how do we deal with the poor, those who are at or below the poverty level. we already have this provision in there and we still raised the same amount of money. if you are at or below the poverty level, your plan is not 999, it is 909. say amen. 909. if you are at or below poverty level based on family size, then you do not pay the middle 9 tax on income. this is how we help the poor. host: herman cain's 999. guest: here is the challenge. i applaud sense that the present system is broken, it is to redistributionist, absolutely. and he wants to go to a retail sales tax, income tax on consumed income that you pay as a sales tax at the store. everybody pays the same rates,

very simple. but the transition he set up, 999, got him attention -- which is helpful, but here is the challenge. three taxes. 9% value-added tax -- japanese style, not european-style -- a tax on all wages, and 9% sales tax, dusty day in most sense, and 9% income tax. a lot less than willing about an income tax that goes up to 35%. having three taxes for a transition period is like swallowing 3 tapeworms and assuming two will go away and one will be well behaved. i worry that when you create new taxes that there is a temptation for them to grow. we can certainly look at europe. when they added a value added tax, promising other taxes would go down, in every country that had introduced in europe, not only did the vat increase dramatically but all other taxation increase more rapidly

than before. it was not instead of, it was in addition to. we see this in the united states. new jersey, in the 1970's, very high property taxes. very bad, with the fix it. we will have an income tax and now your property taxes will come down. now we have the new jersey, the highest income tax and highest property tax. and just did the same thing with the people in connecticut, who i guess are slow learners, and now they have a high income tax and high property tax. so, creating new taxes to fix all taxes does not end well. host: we will hear from rick perry and others as we move along but let's take our first call from illinois. karen, democrat. welcome to the program. caller: thank you very much for taking my call. mr. norquist, i am very offended that you had the republican party signed your petition to not ever raise taxes.

because you don't live in my district, and you have my representative sign that. he is supposed to have an open mind when you go to congress. how can you have an open mind when you sign a position a matter hell or high water, you will never raise taxes. we need revenue in this country. i don't know how -- how do you have so much power to do this? to have everybody son? guest: actually, you have power. i think you understand -- misunderstand with the pledges. it is not a petition. it is a one-cent commitment that the congressman takes to you. if you read the pledge, go to our website, atr.org . use seed238 members of congress and 41 members signed a pledge. it says i will not raise net taxes.

a tax reform -- cutting some taxes and raising others, fine. as long as it is revenue neutral. we don't want tax reform to become a trojan horse for a tax increase. you can press to politicians who wants to have tax reform, if they have taken the pledge and made it clear tax reform will not turn into a tax increase. that pledge, when you have a pledge to read it, it is to you. it is to your congressmen or congresswomen's constituent -- it is not to me personally, which sometimes silly people say. so, the power is in your hands. now, the majority of people in your district voted for a congressman who promised to them and to you he or she would not raise your taxes. if you are for tax increases, then vote for a candidate who is for tax increases. but don't be unhappy that a politician tells you the truth about what he is going to do entries you with the respect and dignity to say, let me tell you what i am going to do and what i am not going to do.

i am not going to pick your pocket. i will reform government. the other politicians to go and say that i want to raise taxes, i will buy well raise them and to heck with you and i will not listen to you and i will certainly not spend time reforming government because we will do everything we have been doing and we need to do more -- raise taxes. there are two kinds of politicians and will for the one who wants to raise taxes and not reform government if that is what you want but don't be angry at the other citizens in your district. he promised it to all of you, he or she promised to all of you that they will not raise taxes. that is a good thing. host: rochelle. caller: hi, mr. norquist. i like your debate with ed rendell. guest: i did, too. amoco hebrew -- prove many of your statements are false. guest: actually, he did not, but we could go through it. caller: i read in the media that

you are threatening -- anyone who raises taxes you would punish them. is that true? guest: no, -- it is true you may have read that in the newspapers. i have read it in the newspapers. what a pledge says is it is a commitment by an elected official that he or she will not raise taxes. they may do many of or interesting things but they will not raise your taxes. that commitment is to you and to other people in your towns and cities in that congressional district or bring that state, if it is a senator. 1300 state legislators have taken the pledge not to raise taxes and 13 governors as well. you are calling from illinois. in illinois your governor has not taken the pledge. he has raised taxes. it is the legislature has not taken the pledge. they have raised taxes. across the country, and illinois in the last couple of years has done more often terms of tax increases than other states and people are leaving your state as

a result. the economy is not doing well as a result. people are moving to states with lower taxes. so, the damage being done to illinois by tax increasing politicians is very unfortunate for illinois and you did not do anything to deserve it other than elect people who cheerfully raise taxes rather than, unfortunately, reform government. who enforces the pledge? when bush 41 was selected because he promised never to raise taxes -- he defeated the other republicans of the primary. remember, he was 17 points down in the polls before he said i am never raising your taxes. trust me. he raised taxes -- with an otherwise successful presidency, and of the cold war without a lot of blood on the floor, he got iraq out of kuwait and did not expect occupying the place for decades. he governed very well with one big exception, he raised taxes. and he lost the next election.

i did not do that. the american people did that. host: more of your calls in the next couple of minutes. but let us hear from texas government rick perry, talking here briefly about his flat tax plan. caller: central to my plan is giving every american the option of throwing out that 3 million words of the current tax code -- and i might add, the cost of complying with all of that code -- in order to pay a 20% flat tax on their income. the best representation of my plan is this postcard. this is the size of what we are talking about right here. host: grove guest: i think it is very good.

the whole plan is a good idea. even obama talks about cutting the corporate tax rate. the tax rate is 35% in the united states. the average in europe is 25%. because we have a worldwide tax system but it's all american companies less competitive than companies owned by germans or irish people, is a terrible disadvantage for americans. when you take the rate down to up least 25 percent signed, but here is the problem, europeans to not have state income corporate taxes. of we're still five points above the european average when you at the average state tax increase, so he takes it down to 20% of corporate. there are 3 million companies that pay the core rate in the united states, and 20 million

small companies. what obama wants to do is take the corporate rate down to a general mortars and g e pay 25 percent signed. still more than competitors. then he wants to take individual rate at 35 percent signed up to 40 and now 45 percent signed with the taxes that are baked into the cave and once the higher the tax to 50. we will be a 50% if he were a small business up chapter s corporation. vader corp. 25 percent signed. we need to keep both of those of the same rate so that individuals pay less of small businesses do not get whacked. pride -- quite a good plan. believe perry is this fraud is get a bit of all the candidates running for president. i like his tax plan and energy

plant. i am an african-american, and although i do admire mr. king, i believe rick perry spam is stronger. in illinois we have one of the most incompetent governors of the history of illinois. he raised everyone copied taxes 66%. meanwhile, the developer party of leadership keep members so uneducated. we see absolutely no change of the state. i believe it is time for the tea party and republican party to back perry and shift gears. i do believe he fits the perfect target of what occupy wall street is looking for. mitt romney is receiving most of obama's investors. it is an end game strategy, in that is where to be used against them.

guest: well, he has enough money to compete with mayor bradley of the primaries. both of them are strong candidates of the republican primary. i think either would defeat president obama in the general election. rick perry has a 10-year history as donor of texas. tremendous track record of success. i have been surprised that most of the ec did not come forward. most of the states require contracts expenditures be put on line. -- i have been surprised that most of the things he did for the state does not come forward. when i called rick perry corp. and he had several that were texas-pacific. we immediately started talking to other states.

on our web site, you can go to all of the state websites exist, and that transparency issue is an extremely good idea. >> grover marquest wanted to drop the obama story. they see he is it. -- wanted to see it. guest: he has put together a broad movement towards free market, less taxes and regulation. it is not as dramatic as 9-9-9 or perry's plan. i think he might want to come out and do something more specific on taxes, but all of them are moving in the right direction.

also, keep in mind that the republican -- a republican will within the presidency given the with the economy has been going. they own the house of purpose of assuring that it should capture the senate 2012, because they only need to win four./ we will have republican house and senate. the question is, what about the presidency? what is the bill he will sign? he will sign the tax reform that congress passes. congress has already endorsed the ryan plan, which as a 25% rate. and it will be something between ryan and perry or between ryan and herman cain or between right and and that romney's plan. when you're picking a president, understand that is an interesting comment, but the house of the seven have a lot to say. >> 25 minutes left.

tony on the line. guest: i was just out in california pierre d. caller: i live in oakland. my comment is on the plants that the republicans have come at both plants and say what they want to say, but when it comes down to what they're all point to raise your taxes. the american people surely it to get themselves. if you look back as far back as the reagan administration, ronald reagan raised taxes. to hundreds of it is $5 billion. they lost a lot of money then.

did when george bush sr. came into office, he also had a deficit. they also raise taxes. no one said anything. when clinton came in he had a surplus, but he was still working with george bush sr. to make sure they all got paid. the american people are being informed of not looking at the facts and seeing if repressive of that has ever been in office has raise taxes. it is a band that has to be done, because the economy has to be stimulated from the state and local levels, the federal level. people have to be able to live and build roads and schools of different things like that. guest: you raise a couple of different points. reagan did raise taxes.

the democrat said here is what we will do. we will cut $3 in spending. you will raise taxes $1 for every $3 and a big reduction in the deficit. reagan agreed to that. quite frankly the republican senate was in league with the democrats in the house, and it's a $3 spending cuts to every $1 tax increase. the deal got past. the tax is for real. we're still paying the taxes that were increased in 1982, and spending, instead of coming down by $3 of pretax increase, spending increased more rapidly after the 1982 deal, because it did not go down by $3, it increased more than before. then, in 1990, the democrats went to george herbert walker bush. they sit tell you what, you are chief pierre did you get $2 a pretend cut.

he should have learned from reagan, but he did not. what happened? that tax increases for real, and spending did not go down, it went up more rapidly after bush 's tax increase been before. and what was expected. now what is happening, here is what i did the good news is that that is wrong. that is people remember 1982. they know if you walk into a room with democrats and say we will raise taxes if you cut spending, two things happen. taxes go up in spending goes up. having learned that some of the leader of the house and mitch mcconnell and the senate made it very clear for this past year that we need to bring down obama spendina's spending. the only way to cut spending is

to cut spending. raising taxes is no part in raising. it enables spending money. it's a bearish trend to quit smoking, you did not give them more cigarettes. if you're trying to get him to stop spending, giving him more money is not clear to help get him to stop overspending. that is why the republicans have learned from painful examples. very embarrassing and back to the economy. do not raise taxes, they will suspend the money and bring down spending. host: buffalo, n.y.. caller: i want to know where you get funding for the individual corporation? i think this is very important to the american people. guest: we get support from

direct mail. etters. out leader we get support from foundations. we have a c3 foundation. the answer is, are we public? we take on a lot of powers of washington, d.c. and americans for tax reform's takes on a very powerful spending interest that want to trillion dollars in tax increases, and we work with the american people to say no. the law quite correctly protect the privacy of people who could be written by politicians, either because of the case of somebody of the left, they support the american civil liberties union or americans for tax reform. we have very powerful which spending interest. it is very unhappy that we're part of the rec and effort to

stop raising taxes. that is what the law is very productive for tax privacy. host: a little bit of a push back for you. guest: i think he is confusing government with america. we should never confuse the government with the american people or the country. that is something the germans used to do, and it is not good. government is not the country. government is not society. government is a very important piece of a free society. you want to of a military to keep the canadians on their side of the border. police to keep people from stealing your stuff, but when government becomes too large, it becomes abusive of liberty rather than protecting liberty. what we have done is pushed for limiting total government spending, limiting taxes at the state level as well as at the federal level.

if his dream is to get his the about other people's money, yes, i am in favor of saying to him, we're agreed to prop your ball and not get that have the bottle and government. host: we also heard a knock on your tax event you cover last week. [inaudible] here is a short piece as a former senator talks about the tax budget. >> let me say. let me get that to grover norquist, because he is a good guy with a bad idea. anybody that can go through their rosy years and pick of a pledge that you're never one to raise taxes under any situation, even if your country is extremity is justice. he came and testified before us. he said my hero is ronald reagan. i said great, mine, too. as of ronald reagan raised taxes 11 times in 11 years.

he said, i know, he did he saidd not like that at all. here you have a situation where 95 percent of the republicans that are serving have signed the pledge. how can you send a pledge before you heard the debate, read the information, know the position of your country and pretend you are a legislator? i think that is a remarkable absurdity. as spend a lot of time talking about him, and i needed to. he is the most powerful man in the united states right now. host: more about the power. the phrase remarkable absurdity. guest: the american people are very committed to not raising their taxes. did just elected a congress that is committed to not raising taxes. people campaigned on that pledge. unlike democrats to make private

colleges stoop labor union bosses to trial lawyers that are never written down for public, the pledge is public. it is on the web. when people run for office and said they are not where to run for office, i will reform government not to raise taxes. if you are not willing to say taxes off -- say taxes are off the table, you never get to reform in government. it is a very interesting one, but he misses -- alan simpson mrs. that he is an argument with the american people and the particular are year at about 95 percent of republicans in congress, more like 98 percent said. it is only six guys of the house and not taken the pledge. seven republicans. the good news is the hill newspaper went to interview with those 13, and with one exception all of them said i did not sign pledges for some reason, but i

would never raise taxes. we have ivory snow percentages here republicans. 99.99% that are committed to not raising taxes, and that protect all americans. host: gave republican. caller: good morning. -- gabe are republican for growth and request. -- a republican for grover nor rq quist. 14,000 companies have left for china because taxes are hovering around the 40% corporate tax rate. the company i work for did the same thing. they said we are leaving the united states because taxes are too high. where were to go to chat and

holland were the rates are much lower. we may someday return to the united states and higher -- but these 14th of the companies have left in addition to this. it is a large international company am talking about. i will not much of its name. about 14,000 company averaged about 1000 people per company, which is 14 million, which fat checks of the number of unemployed, so the number of unemployed being 50 million is because our corporate tax rates are hovering around 40 percent signed, and the rest of the world is not. this is why companies leave the united states and will not come back until that is strange. that is my comment. host: you were in michigan. guest: it is not the just some companies leave the united states, although some are because of the reasons your sink, but people move between states. detroit used to be much bigger

than it is today. people are leaving wisconsin. leaving other states in moving to lower-tax states. a million people have left california over the past 10 years. almost 1 million people have moved into florida. why? no state income tax in texas if florida. high income taxes in other states. you see this -- it is easier move -- to move from one state to another. they do not let you debate all types are poor regions. people will move between states, and you see that. if they are telling politicians taxes matter. we hear from the academics that taxes do not matter, as we know from jobs that leave the united states and from people who lose state to state, they are sending a very strong signal to the politicians, listen to as a keep taxes low. host: michael on the line for

democrats. from new york. caller: please let me respond to your comments, because i find your comments are so incredibly faulty that they need to be responded to. first of all, the question becomes, is the tax rate right now not the law was that has been for quite a long time? lower that has been in many years guest. guest: was 28 is a time when reagan left office. caller: income tax. guest: i am talking about is the tax rate that people pay. what you're talking about is the percentage of gdp. that is down because obama is driving the economy into the dirt. caller: the economy sites makes no difference. if the economy goes down, the gdp goes down, so your comment

is wrong. guest: [inaudible] caller: i am talking about the tax rate for the rich, not for everyone. guest: well, let's see. obama promise what you ran for office that he would never catch that one less thing to ever $50,000 per year caller: i am talking about argue against raising taxes for people over $1 million? guest: i would certainly oppose raising taxes on anyone in this country. caller: what are we going to do about the three trillion dollar deficit in our infrastructure. what are you want to do about the fact that our structure is falling apart? host: let me get him to respond, and that we will get one more comment from you. guest: there are politicians that like to get up and say i would to tax the rich, and not everybody else. that is what clinton did when he

ran. the only tax the top 2%. everybody uses gasoline. obama said he would never raise any kind of tax on any one party listen to under 50,000 per year. 16 days into his presidency, not three weeks into his presidency, he raised taxes on corporate jets? know. billionaires'? nope. cigarette smokers. there is a one-person and the entire country that are the road to better fit the thousand per year and smoke cigarettes. his name is barack obama. this burst tax was on low-income people here again -- this first tax was on low-income people. the reason politicians say there were to raise taxes on rich people is remember the alternate minimum tax? 1969. 150 people needed to be taxed.

they're wrapping it up. tens of millions are paying the tax. now.hey're back it how did we pay for the spanish war? taxes. 100 years later, a tax on everyone who has phones, which is 90% of the country. it was promised they will tax the rich, and they screw everybody. host: one more final thought. caller: first of all, you are strictly political. i was asking about policy. and if they do something other than what we asked them to do, that is right, they are wrong. we do not want of taxing the middle class. we want of taxing the rich. i asked them specifically, should they be taxing the rich more? guest: i think if you reduce

marginal tax rates, which is what we've done, we get more out of a growing economy if the economy is bigger in europe lower taxes on a bigger economy, the government would get more revenue. of end of the readeryears reagan's presidency, the government was getting almost twice as much revenue. it was a dramatic increase in revenue with lower rates. we should be moving in that direction. host: as you know, but there is a huge the blood coming in progress. 24 days to be exact. the deficit reduction committee is supposed to act or not act on its plan. we will see what happens. here is what they're being asked to pursue. 1.2 trillion dollars in spending cuts or tax revenue. yet they must vote by the 23rd. congress must vote a month later, by december 23. if there is no agreement, one

point to 1/3 trillion will be cut between defense and domestic spending. what you want to see happen? -- what do you want to see happen? guest: the six republicans and six democrats on the super secret committee -- i believe it should be on c-span. nothing good happens if c-span is not watching pierre did it whatever deal they are cutting without the tv cameras there are bad for the american people, or they do them in public. the democrats do not want to talk about tax increases and public. i think they should have to. so they will not raise taxes. that is off the table. the question is whether the democrats want to help the republicans cut in spending in a reasonable way or whether they do across-the-board cuts. what the democrats have always planned to do is come up and talk about a plan that is an

essay. then the go to the republicans and not agree to anything. then we will go to the automatic sequester. host: the committee is meeting again tomorrow. we will be there. we will be watching. he wanted to bring up our recent statistics that the congressman from virginia has had. here is a recent clip of the congressman from the courthouse. >> we have really reached the point where one person's demand for illegal logical curacy is paralyzed in congress to the point where that even a discussion of tax reform is viewed as breaking and no tax pledge. i understand some may not agree with what i said. i know many are not aware of mr. norquist's association, but my

conscience tells me to speak out today. guest: he is not taken the pledge. he is the only republican whose city is for tax increases. he endorsed 2 trillion in tax increases in the simpson-bowls proposal. no other republican in the house has endorsed that tried dope tax increase. specifically that one. he called me to lobby me a number of years ago for a bill he had, which had set up a commission which had set up tax increases and spending cuts. at the time i reminded him what happened in 1982 and 1990. i thought it via the commissioners of spending restraint, it would be a good idea. these are what the democrats are running the house of the senate. it is a bipartisan commission. it would have recommended towards democrats in terms of

who was on the commission, could the president was the appointee. he was guaranteed tax increases. little or no spending cuts, and the democrats have a house and senate. the past them. different idea ofor ide a way to go. he has not read the pledge. bid there is no net tax increase. -- there is no net tax increase. i created it and was divorced by president reagan in 1986. why? to help pass tax reform. only if people felt comfortable there would be no tax increase -- you could cannot get the tax

increase of as people go it will not return, and to tax increase. not only is the pledge consistent with tax reform, he misunderstands completely what it does. you do not get tax reform without the protection of the pledge. again, the pledges of force by the people of your district and state. not by me. he has been very frustrated republican leadership is against taxes rather than for it. to pretend to be mad at me, is silly. host: : on the line from north carolina. caller: it is an honor and pleasure to be talking to you. i will never forget this, because today is my birthday. halloween. thank you. to be here and talk to you.

those that signed the taxpayer protection pledge, everyone that signed the pledge, they signed it so no jobs -- there is no jobs, and they signed a pledge that republicans voted against it. except mr. wolf voted against it. because the economy, the way that it is and everyone is in the streets, do you not think -- you keep going back to ronald reagan. you think all this started when he came into office? do not think because of that everyone is losing? the 1 percent that you're trying

to protect. do you not think that president obama has done everything possibly that the republicans have tried, everything they wanted. a lot of us i have voted for it, and i am very disappointed with the president, but now that he did everything he can to make the country grow, and you make them sign a pledge. guest: i did not make anyone signed a pledge. people take the pledge because they want to say there -- to their constituents, and they live in districts that do not want their taxes raised and want to keep taxes low and have economic growth. that is what congress of senators, governors take the pledge and keep the pledge. those states that did not raise taxes are doing better than states that did not raise taxes. we assume that. -- we have seen that peered at

for two years president obama and harry reid and nancy pelosi had complete control of the american government. they had a strong majority in the house. strong majority in the senate. they did exactly what it wanted to do. things got worse. the idea that the government can create jobs, that the $800 billion that obama and the los to put together to spread a of a billion dollars that they borrowed, the theory runs of the government takes a dollar from someone who earned it, either bars it from or takes it in taxes and then gives it to somebody is politically connected, that you somehow created more dollars in the economy, that they stand on one side of the lake and each dip d pur itcket in an claim that in,

they refilled the like. there are more joblessness. more people out of work. the worst economy now than when they did that. i would argue we know it does not work. government taking money and spending it does not work. we know from history what has worked, and between countries and between states. lower taxes, less regulation, less spending, these of the things they give you more economic growth. that is what we need to move towards, government making job or they take money at of the economy and move it. that does not create a dollar. been groverest has norquist. thank you for coming out and sharing your insights with us.

we will take a brief timeout, and when we come back, we will talk with officers of a new book on america's battle against al qaeda. the book is called " counterstrike." >> checking on the news headlines and the economy with one trading day left in october, the dow has posted a 12% gain for the month, but markets are down overseas of concerns that europe's debt crisis may be prolonged ahead of the opening bell on wall street. dow futures are down over 100 points. bowling set to announce today an agreement was ordered to be standard that house this distaste -- the space shuttle. the deal expected to create over 140 jobs of the next 18 months and up to a 550 jobs by 2015. since phasing out the space shuttle program earlier this year, nasa rely solely on russia for travels to space station.

at midnight local time, the air campaign over libya ends. the bombing mission stopped shortly after obama's death earlier this month. officials say nato forces carried out 9600 strikes over libya in the past seven months. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think thoughts are that the super committee, if it comes up with recommendations for the congress on deficit reduction, that it will include a proposal relating to spectrum. that is tonight on "the communicators." >> the heat is on. this is the first time were that

i have seen in my long tenure in politics the real heat. these guys cannot come up with something, i am telling you, there will not want to go home. to go on to state the deficit reduction committee will hear from alan simpson and peak demand a check. -- and pete dimeniche. you could watch those meetings online at the c-span video library. everything is archived in searchable. what what you want, when you want. -- watch what you want, when you want. e are agreed tord t talk about this bookto "counterstrike."

let's begin with tom. the book begins with more present day with the raid that ended up killing osama bin laden. you write that this mission would not happen success for possible a decade ago. guest: before 9/11 the u.s. government was divided. there were a lot of turf battles. the military did not like working with the diplomats. the diplomats did not trust the intelligence community. the horror of 9/11 force the government to knock down walls that were divided into various institutions. also, very significant development of growth of military capabilities. before 9/11, the commando team that went after osama bin laden, if you could be in your unit and spend the whole time in the military and never execute real operation. today those units are out 20 times per night in afghanistan

and elsewhere. they are very affective in ways they were not before 9/11. host: talk about the culture. .ost on on 9/11, we have very few intelligence. we talk about of the book is how big was the arm is becoming much more expert in new bonds in understanding how al qaeda works as a network. also, how you use a government approach. that is not just the military intelligence community, which are very important. other agencies of the government. the fbi is deploying agents overseas to work for counterparts. the treasury department is very much involved in choking off of

finance for terrorist organizations today. host: phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for guests. both are from "the new york times > ." we will get your calls and several minutes. the untold story. what else have we not read in the front pages or not seen on the news that you want to bring forth? guest: we want to talk a lot about how terrorist networks have evolves. they are not assessed that the organization, but they have even as the united states and allies tried to respond, the terrorist are quite nimble and take for instance how they operate in cyberspace. this is one of their best to patrons. this is where they do much of the recruiting. it is where they raise money into operational planning using the same kind of online video

games and war games the teenagers' use. they use it in the special covert to mean something in their plant. host: you write about the money and stopping the flow of money is so vital pierre did you talk about it fairly early in the book. tell us more. guest: it's it's a lot of money to operate a terrorist network. the government learns slowly and painfully it is impossible to kill your way to victory. they identified the essential elements of terrorist networks, and the financial network is one of them. the people who move the financial for terrorist networks do not want to make the ultimate sacrifice. they are liable to be pressured with threats and arrest in ways that could break above financial trchain. you pressure the money men, and able at all. host: chapter two entitled "the

new deterrence. : " tell us more about this chapter. guest: it was rumsfeld who famously wrote is the u.s. policy creating more militants that are being taken off the battlefield? just because he said something, it does not necessarily mean it is wrong. your did he was the one who pushed a new outside of the box thinking that asked whether cold war deterrence theory has an application for terrorists. it is to -- true they do not have factories and camps and all that, but as we talk about in the book, there are things that they need to operate that are subject to the same kind of threats and reprisals that make deterrence work. what is deterrence? it is the perception of a threat

that alters your behavior. those threats against the fine dancers, gunrunners, even some of the members' families can have a deterrent effect and prevent them from carrying out an attack. host: we will get to the calls with just one moment. i wanted to ask about the ideas of technology. we hear about technology and read about drones attacks. guest: clearly the armed drones are a crucial part of these terrorism campaigns. it is only one part. when you talk ladrones, you talk about the other half, which is surveillance. much about what we talked out earlier could not be done without innocence of increase in the bill before the united states could -- to conduct surveillance on the enemy. this is not just through satellite technology. it is also true other aircraft that can monitor and hover over

targets 24/7. it is an incredible increase in it the ability to eavesdrop on e-mail and cell phone conversations and take that information and put it through supercomputers and make matches so you have individuals who are matched up. if you eavesdrop on someone's conversation, you get hurt and a hit on that person. you cannot out the network that person uses. if there is a gun in your picking up some but then maybe you could pick up who is driver is. who supplies him and who he reports of the chain to. these things are being crunched in allowing the terrorism officials and the u.s. and western allies to be much more effective and targeting members of the important work. host: there is a lot more in the book, but we will get some calls now. george from kentucky, republican calller. caller: good morning.

is good overseas, and the government is doing a great job. how come they cannot protect their own borders with the influx of guns and drugs and terrorists? guest: it is a very fair question. as we write in the book, one of the challenges of national security is how this nation can move from tactical sex to use tactical success to tactical success, but still not achieved a victory. -- can move from a tactical success to tactical success, and still not achieved a victory. one of the interesting developments in the new darwinism of american policy is that what the united states has learned in counterterrorism in encountering insurgency overseas may have some very useful applications to the terror

problem along the border. the drug lords operate as networks, just like al qaeda. they have very devoted leaders. some of the network operators in the middle that the drug lords have to operate are susceptible to the exact same kind of pressures that are terror networks. they have statehouses, finance years, and gun runners. i think we will see the u.s. government across the interagency applying the lessons of afghanistan to the problem of the border. charlie, good morning. you were on the air. caller: very good. air.ou are on the go ahead. caller: here is my question.

and george washington and the american rebels were considered terrorist -- terrorists in their eras. we spent a lot of time trying to kill terrorists and hunt them down. why don't we spend 25% to 50 percent of our time searching out the reason why these people have grievances against the united states, and why they dislike us, rather than kill them. are we going to kill a 55 or 100 million people in the middle east? is that our end goal? guest: yet they raised a very important question, and that is how did they get to the endpoint? the point is to get to the ideologies. it is a very simple but effective message. that is the west and united states is at war with islam. it is a very typical message.

it is having to try to lift incredible voices within the muslim community to point of a very fundamental fact, and that aremuch of the attacks ap against muslim wawomen and children. guest: the calller is correct in identifying the problems that caused this franchise frustration. poverty, lack of education. i think it is incumbent upon all of us to have our own goal of eradicating this. the problem is that is the millennial challenge. in the meantime, this nation has to take steps to protect itself. the calller is right, you cannot kill your way to victory. as this nation and all of us try to eradicate policy and raise

the standard of living, nonetheless the national security workers have to continue carrying out operations to keep the country safe. host: what are you writing? guest: pakistan is probably the most it does place on earth today. it is a rather unstable civilian government, and they actually foster the safe haven for terrorists internally. if you put yourself in pakistan's shoes and see yourself -- and in one direction see india, and the other direction to up to the stand, and stand,

and unstable area. you do not believe the u.s. is good to stay so you want to foster the idea that we're there to influence afghanistan. as one of our sources told us, the same thing as having poisonous snakes in your backyard, that your training to buy your kids, they will buy your kids, too. these terrorist groups will turn on you and destabilize or government. host: this is from secretary clinton's appearance on the hill. the leedses just upper month after a spy network of secret week supporting the chair were network, which has mounted attacks on americans, the obama administration is relying on the same until service to have organized reconciliation talks aimed at ending the war in afghanistan. tell us more. guest: the united states, come in looking to get a political solution to the afghan war, is dependent on pakistan's spy agency. they work very closely with the militant groups in afghanistan, many who operate out of six wars in afghanistan. here you are aware the united states government is relying on to weaken the terror

network, and also rely on them to get the same groups to the bargaining table for an ultimate solution to the end of the war in a canister. it is a very difficult position the administration is in, even within the of ministration, many are skeptical whether it will work. we've seen this movie before. host: here is the headline -- we have michigan on the line. gerry, an independent. caller: what happened to the helicopter that went down and pakistan? the seal team and all of that kind of stuff? i would like to say that i think the seal teams are over rated. there used to be on two teams, and now there are 10 of them. all of these new toys and all

this kind of stuff. mainly of a like to find out about that, and also instead of putting advisers in the cargo and all of that kind of stuff, that is how vietnam got started with advisers. host: off several different points there. you write about the helicopter as part of the mission. guest: this is a still helicopter designed to insert and extract commando teams. it is very interesting. the practice this mission dozens of times, fuel and wait and all of that, but the temperature the night of the raid was different than they expected, so it did not have the lift required in crashed inside the compound. explosives were set. most of the vital technology was destroyed, but large pieces were left behind, which the pakistan .is have recovered guest:

guest: all of u.s. special forces have expanded greatly. the calller saying the expansion, which is true, and is part of a larger expansion of special forces that are performing missions every night, every day really, not only in places like iraq and the afghanistan but looking at yemen and perhaps some day in somalia as well. perhaps these areas that receive these franchises of al qaeda springing up. host: he made one more point. talking about the condo. -- congo. guest: three weeks ago president obama ordered mostly special operation forces that are experts in teaching local military tout to be better. they are fighting a groups, the l.r.a. these are horrible group of

people. they steal women in the night and forced them into bright we will call it what it is, rape. he is sending 100 trainers to work with the local military spirit of the goal is to enable local militaries to fight them. the president promised none of these 100 soldiers would be fighting themselves. to be sure, this is a slippery slope, but they are very disciplined in their training, and they're not to participate themselves in direct action host. caller: good morning. the 9/11 terror rest were all from saudi arabia, very rich country. just because "the new york times" prints itself does

not mean it is truth. it is utterly biased. guest: we like to think we are not biased. we checked all of our fax and sources. we try to get a balanced and comprehensive view, but we appreciate your comment on that. as to the 9/11 attackers, they mostly were saudis, and that was the focus of networks inside saudi arabia. it took a few years before the crackdown on their own on these networks, but now they have proved to be one of the united states most reliable allies in the fight against terrorism and that part of the world. -- in that part of the world. caller: does the united states consider wikileaks a terrorist organization, and where they're responsible for cutting off the funding? i would like the comment that when grover norquist was on, i

thought you let him back away, and one person that called in with the actual numbers to dispute him, you cut off. guest: wikileaks is not considered a terrorist organizations, and the funding has been caught off by a number of credit-card companies that did not want to be associated. that is how they raise the money, buy online donations. host: want to talk about the spring.in ho guest: what is interesting is how little al qaeda had to do with this. if you look at what is happening in this country, it has been largely peaceful, secretary income and driven by social media. al qaeda did not have an impact in the beginning. now we are several months into the efforts, and you see are

ready disillusionment sinking into these countries. -- already disillusionment sinking into these countries. host: tom, elaborate on that and speak about the death of osama bin laden and the impact of moving forward. guest: the gap between the early euphoria and expectations from the spring and the disappointing results of the governments in play today, and that gap, terrorism can grow. the death of osama bin laden, although he has not been murdered the way people thought, at the al qaeda brand is not ending. the call of bin laden is still

very powerful. host: been on the independent line from michigan. -- dana. caller: i was wondering if all others of the book are aware of a man named muhammed of hosomi. he was in minneapolis and was arrested. he was arrested and was kept pretty quiet, because the judge eventually did 10 years and was extradited from canada where you originally given to the country. host: why do you bring it up? caller: i read a book a year and a half later about plot where these taliban set themselves up as farmers. they have large quantities of rice, and it was discovered it

was produced in pakistan. that would be the ideal thing to use against the supply. host: either of you familiar with the case? guest: the danger of a homegrown terrorists is something we do read about in the book. as you look to the future, al qaeda central and pakistan is one did. the affiliate's elsewhere are the rising stars of the tear affiliate network, but it is the home grown self-radicalized jihadi that has a law enforcement concerned. they go on line and read the propaganda. the challenge of combating the long wolf is he or she is almost impossible to find before they act. host: you have that in the book come home from terrorism. guest: what we wrote about is

the growth of a homegrown radicals, and much of what has happened is through the online videos. there is a guy that was an american-born cleric that preached in mosques. he was an american citizen who moved over to al qaeda, and can not only the cheap propaganda st wn, but one of the mos important planners. he was involved 10 months later in the same al qaeda yemens plot to pack explosives in printer cartridges and put them on planes bound for the united states. so how these things track is this is the same individual that his online videos are still very much in circulation here in the united states.

radicalizing the individual american. the big concern for local law enforcement and the fbi because they are so hard to detect, and lik unlike cells. guest: the calller mentioned the chemical license, a highly toxic wipe out. in yemen an al qaeda and yeme that has been trying to amass amass a plot. host: where did they come rahm? guest: they are an agricultural commodity, but it is how you harvest them and pull out the poison that makes them a danger. host: 15 minutes left with our

guests, eric schmitt and thom shanker. they have written a book, "counterstrike: the untold story of america's secret campaign against al qaeda." how long did ticket but the book together? guest: we had a front-page story in "the new york times" about three years ago, but it was working up there right up until the end where bin laden was killed. we were in the final write up and were able to doing final chapter in 96 hours so we were right on the cusp of things. guest: one of our early readers back in april said, "you guys need a better ending," and the seals gave us one. host: next caller. good morning. caller: another caller talked

about the border. i feel like one of the biggest reasons, aside from the political football that the immigration issue is, is that border security is not sexy. there is not enough money available for the big defense contractors to get behind and lobby for those types of things to go on. one example that i would use is the fact that in the iraq war, halliburton was given a contract for oil fighters that never happened after we went into iraq. in turn, they got to not lose that $7 billion but got to do something else, other projects in iraq. when those kinds of dollars are

being drawn around -- thrown around, i think oftentimes there is profiteering and other nefarious things going on that our money is being spent unwisely just for the sake for the most connected to do what they want to do or what they think is best when really that is not the best way. it is kind of scary when you think about the amounts of money that have been spent since 9/11. host: brad from indiana. response? guest: the caller had a good point that since 9/11 there have been hundreds of billions spending on how you combat ied's to how you develop and train the afghan and iraqi national security forces.

what is important to note that in this current age of budget tightening and the pentagon and the government is all going through this. what we talked about in the book is that the government has to be smarter in howard fight terrorism. we need to look at this in a risk-management point of view and how you go about spending your dollars wisely and evaluate what the threat is both overseas and here at home. we see the threat migrating from the centralized threat that the core leadership in al qaeda once represented to this much more dispersed threat, whether it is the franchises in places like yemen or homegrown in the united states. guest: the special inspector general for afghanistan and iraq has found billions of dollars of waste. what is difficult about war is it is the grimmest decision any democracy can make. the fact a company was given a

contract to fight oil fires was a lesson from the first war when a son dom ignited the oil platforms. -- when saddam ignited platforms. the first mission was not a commando raid but special forces seizing the oil platforms to make sure they could not be detonated. it was that kind of planning that prevented halliburton from putting out fires. host: democrat, ron, good morning. caller: i have a comment and a couple of questions. first and foremost, where other assets of our government have failed us, our troops and intelligence agencies stand out with exemplary conduct and professionalism. i am in all of our troops. they are just the finest in the world -- i am in awe. sharia law in the u.s. and

mosques, what kind of dangers duties imposed? with china, are they friend or foe basically? they are a trading partner right now, but the only technology they have is what they have stolen from other countries. there are the first in line to get our secret technology when it crashes in pakistan. host: thom shanker, sharia law in the u.s. guest: we do address this point. as long as one of the world's greatest religions. --islam is one of the world's greatest religions. this is a perversion of the teachings. in the sense of the law, we respect the religions of all. host: eric schmitt, china?

guest: it is a possible competitor down the road. one thing we talked about is the threat coming from cyber attacks. there have been a number of threats emanating from china, and it is always hard to tell if is the chinese government for chinese-backed criminal organizations behind these attacks. clearly, the chinese military is in the rise and it is a concern for governments in southeast asia. host: off of twitter -- he is expanding in his mind the technology being used further away on drone attacks. guest: it is something they are concerned about. as the criminality increases, mexico could possibly one day be a failed state. there is increasing concern that

the u.s. military is supporting the domestic organizations, the dea, the fbi, along with the mexican organizations dealing with this potential terrorism issue down the road. could terrorist organizations use these same routes to smuggle in terrorists or some types of weapons of mass destruction? these are concerns that are asking about today. host: thom shanker, chapter 10, take it from president bush to obama. guest: it is the issue of continuity and change. drone strikes, president obama launched more in his first year than president bush did in all eight. what did change, paul, was the tenor and the dialogue. he reached out european allies who had been terribly offended by some of our policies. there is one thought that our

book tries to blow the fog off of the distant mountain top. the penetration after 9/11, understandably, but that terrorists were an existential threat to our nation on par with the soviet union. the soviet union during the height of the cold war, had there been a nuclear exchange, could have been the end of the world as we know it. we have to be mature enough to admit that terrorism do not present the same level of existential threat and therefore the response needs to be mature and calibrated and not over- blown. that is what the obama administration has tried to do, recalibrate. but not to view every foreign relations, everything through the prism of terrorism. host: from indiana, independent, you are on when it -- with thom shanker and eric schmitt.

caller: i have not yet read the book, but i intend to. when one speaks about jihad in the holy war, we need to get into the genesis of that. it is a holy war. did or did not the roman catholic church hundreds of years ago launched its own holy war against islam, killing in the name of christ? what that accomplished was one thing. it just really heightened their degree of sensitivity in a cultural mind-set, and some people call that fanaticism. i do not view it as fanaticism as much as i see this as retaliation. two wrongs never make a right. before we attempt or endeavor to do anything, we need to understand the start of all of this. what was done wrong in western civilization many, many years

ago that precipitated what we're seeing now? it is a cultural, social, and political mind-set. if you could share your thoughts, i would appreciate it. host: thom shanker. guest: that goes back to the question of sharia law. all religions, if honored in their truffe, are positive, just like a crusade launched against the muslim world were a perversion of what christianity teaches. just like the actions of jewish terrorists in the middle east. bile action in the name of islam is simply wrong. -- violent action in the name of islam is the wrong. you cannot pass judgment over the entire religion, but those individuals. one of the worst terrorist acts in recent months was the gunman in norway who slaughtered these children at a summer camp who was in an odd right-wing

christian cult. oklahoma city, timothy mcveigh blew up the federal building not because he was islamist but because he was a right wing homegrown radical. terrorism comes in all flavors and they are all bad. guest:as thom pointed at, you can have an extreme version of religion. islam is a great religion, but when anyone takes that to an extreme, that is when you end up with terrorism and extremism. that is what we talked about in our book, that the government has focused on the extremist elements, be it on the right or left, looking at these individual organizations that commit terrorism. host: republican from savannah, ga., last caller. caller: i am afraid my comments will echo something comments will -- something else about

sharia law. i do not think it is taken seriously by your speakers. i would also like to ask about the potential nuclear power of iran. guest: this is a great issue of foreign policy today, the threat that iran could obtain and use nuclear weapons. this is one main. the u.s. government is applying the diplomacy, trying to engage the world drew the u.n., multi- power talks cannot isolate them, pressure them to give up nuclear weapon development programs. host: final thoughts from thom shanker. guest: 1 and the greatest policy talks is the troop withdrawal and how we maintain the correct posture throughout the persian gulf because the iranians will try to build that power back in,

as they already are. host: our guests have been thom shanker, pentagon correspondent, and eric schmitt. their new book is "counterstrike: the untold story of america's secret campaign against al qaeda." thank you for sharing your book, your insights come and taking our viewers' questions. we have at 45 minutes left in this monday edition of "washington journal." coming up, we will learn how much money the government spends on research and development. this is our continuing series about your money. in the meantime, news headlines from c-span radio. >> deep cultural agency has voted to admit palestine as a full member even as u.s. lawmakers threaten to withhold $80 million in funding to unesco. following the vote, one shouted

in french, "long live palestine." u.s., canada, and germany voted against. russia, china, and france voted in favor. the u.k. abstained. meanwhile, the refugee agency says three of their employees are among the five killed in a suicide bombing in khandahar. a suicide truck bomber and three other insurgents caught up in the blast. two days after an independent body ration of the energy department loan program, a massachusetts company that received a $43 million in the energy department loan guarantees filed for bankruptcy yesterday. filed forer corp. bankruptcy protection in delaware. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think that the odds are that the super-committee, if it

comes up with recommendations for the congress on deficit reduction, it will include a proposal relating to the auctions of the spectrum. >> looking at key telecommunications issues including spectrum sales, net neutrality, and the ftc decision to redirect the universal service fund. tonight on "the communicator's" at 8:00 on c-span2. >> the heat is on. this is the first time i have seen in my long tenure in politics has real heat. if these guys cannot come up with something, they will not want to go home. >> hearing from former senators alan simpson and pete domenici. all have participated in passed deficit reduction talks. you can watch videos of those as

well as the four meetings in the c-span video library. watch what you want when you want. host: we continue our series about your money with, the senior policy advisor for the albert teich -- american association for the advancement of science, albert teich. how much does the government spend on r&d? what is the goal of that? guest: about $150 billion per year. building for the future by developing knowledge in a whole range of areas, medical research, defense research, environment, energy, and physics. i could go on, but the point is

to invest in advancing knowledge for the future. the government has been doing this on a fairly large scale since the end of world war ii. host: some of the details about fiscal year 2012 are in the is about $140 billion. defense related is $80 billion and non-defense related is $60 billion. how is this spread across the government? guest: defense related is mostly within the defense department. a little bit of it is in the department of energy with atomic energy programs that they are responsible for, nuclear weapons research. the rest of it, the $60 billion or so that you cited is largely concentrated in about six agencies. 95% of it is in the national

institute of health, that represents about half the non- defense portion of research. other agencies that have large programs include the department of energy, nasa, national science foundation, the department of agriculture -- did i leave anybody out? i am not sure. it is about six agencies that represent 95%. there are very important agencies that have a smaller portion, the epa is only a small percentage, but it does important research. the department of the interior, department of veterans affairs but rehabilitation research. when you look at the larger numbers, they are a relatively small piece. host: let me get the phone numbers on the screen for viewers to ask questions and comments. albert teich is a senior advisor

for the american association for the advancement of science. $140 trying to track the billion the government spends each year in sight come on research, and development spread across many different agencies with defense leading the way. they spend about $80 billion. we will learn how this money gets used, what the return is, and we will get those numbers on the screen to call in with questions and comments. this figure, $150 billion or so, how does it compare with other countries? guest: actually, we have the largest r&d program in the world in the united states. the economy leads the world, but in proportion to total gdp, our spending does not stand out quite as well.

we are at about 2.7% of g.d.p. which includes government spending and private sector spending with its own resources. the private sector spends more than twice as much as the federal government does on r&d. host: why does the federal government have to spend this money as opposed to the private sector? guest: good question. the federal government funding marks in areas that represent public interest. first of all, take defense. that is a major mission of the federal government. let me start in a slightly different tack. some countries have what they call an r&d budget which puts all these programs in one basket. the u.s. has its programs distributed among the various agencies that we just mentioned

and their programs support the missions of those agencies. we do health research to support the improvement of the nation's health. we do agricultural research in the department of agriculture as a means of improving the nation's food supply. i could go on, but the point is the government has certain missions and, in many cases, the most effective way to pursue those is to accumulate knowledge which can then be applied to the solution of the nation's problems. host: i was going to ask before we take calls, about the return of investment. what would we see? what would we know about based on this money? guest: that me give you some examples. everyone's favorite example is

google. it rose out of some work being done funded by the national science foundation with a $4.50 million grant and two graduate students were working under this grant for a digital library, which sounds kind of esoteric. they were doing work to develop a means of searching for data and they came up with this page ranking method, the basic method on which google operates. as they came up with this new search engine, and you know the story. google is now a $150 billion company that employs 20,000 or more people. this all came out of a small part of a $4.50 million grant given to stanford university on

which these students were funded. it is a wonderful example right there of a huge return on a relatively small investment. vaccination is another area that the federal government has put some money into, but it is harder to quantify the economic benefit. the polio vaccine, sras, -- sars, h1n1. that vaccine was developed with federal government support in a matter of four months. host: with that background, let's get the calls in for albert teich. chuck, independent, up first. caller: i am wondering what your guest feels about the future of nuclear reactor space based on the fuel cycle in the numerous and dances it offers including

at less bad stuff and get rid of the nuclear waste here. it cannot melt down and there are plenty of stories about the advantages. it is one of the few things that senators hatch and reid agree on, more research. but last i heard, the funding seems to have stalled. i'm wondering if your guests can address that. guest: that is not an area in which i can really comment with any degree of expertise. the program is sponsored by the department of energy. they have a lot of priorities. nuclear is one of them. this is one method of generating electricity from nuclear energy. it may very well be an excellent method, but honestly as one of my colleagues wants to say, "it

is above might a little." host: glenn, democart. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am wondering if your guest can comment on the national admissions project having to do with fusion and how that may play into future national energy policy in generating electrical power. host: what do you know about it? caller: i know that it was supposed to be switched on to test about one year ago and that it was tested successfully for a short time. host: albert teich? caller: and then what happened? -- guest: what happened? caller: and industrial model of

this laser system has been designed in the research model using fewer lasers. i believe the industrial model has been pared down to about 12. guest: it is a very interesting technology. if it is going to be commercialized, it has to be taken over by industrial firms. the department of energy can only take it so far. i do not know what the current status is of that program, but when i followed it at an earlier stage, it did seem to be a very promising approach. the problem with fusion research in general is that it is very expensive. the national emissions facility

is extremely expensive for investment. they have to improve their worth. host: what can he say about differences in approach in the bush administration and obama administration in terms of science research and development funding? guest: the interesting thing is that support for research in this country has been pretty much a bipartisan phenomenon for a very long time. but republicans and democrats recognize the importance -- both parties recognize the importance of this investment. that is true now despite theme relatively high level of partisanship that one sees in the campaign and in congress. the bush and administration put more emphasis on defense research, among other things. they were quite generation to

basic research programs. the obama administration had included, i think, about $30 billion of the stimulus to fund research in energy, medical research, and and other areas in basic research. overall, the major difference is probably the level of investment and the interest of the obama administration in alternative energy and climate research as an area which is something the bush and administration tended to steer away from. host: from michigan, next caller. caller: yes. what always bothers me is anything that the government does, the cost is tripled.

i just wonder why they cannot get more control on the money that they spend. $140 billion here. it always bothers me that they do not have more control. host: when you say "control," are you meaning to spend less? caller: no. what i mean is that whatever they spend, it always costs triple what it should. i wonder why they do not have more control. host: the cost of action? guest: he is probably thinking about some of the large projects like the space telescope's. there is a tendency in these large projects for the costs to go up partly because of

inflation. as a program develops, it does take a period of years. the cost of materials that go into it, the salaries, they all increase in price and it is hard to forecast those increases. then you run into these unexpected problems that require that you go back and start over with a certain part of the device or the experiment with the technology. the costs do add up, but what you see primarily in the news media, reports on these large expensive projects, but the average researcher and the research funded, save by the national science foundation, in universities, the national

institutes of health in medical colleges, those research projects are very well controlled. in fact, the reporting systems for controlling costs and making sure that regulations are followed and so on are quite stringent. host: what is the difference between basic and applied research? guest: basic creatures -- research, and i like to think it is research to be published and its purpose is to advance knowledge. scientists gain and improve their reputation, advance in their careers through that kind of publication. basic research often leads, as i explained in the google experience or in terms of many

other experiences, in the future to very important results, products, economic advances. when it is performed, it is done without those kinds of uses in mind. applied research is generally thought of as research and that is done with a specific purpose in mind. vaccination research, at the level of developing a specific vaccine for a specific disease, that is applied. sometimes the lines are fuzzy, i have to say. a lot of people in the community are talking more and more about research as a whole rather than trying to differentiate between basic and applied. host: here is a pie chart put together by my guests organization. the amount is just under $150 billion, total r&d by the

government and the breakdown in the chart. department of defense, just about half, just under $80 billion. department of health, including the national institute of health. department of energy, $13 billion. nasa, $10 billion. with the shuttle program shutting down, did the nasa r&d program go down? guest: the nasa r&d funding, the shuttle program is an operational program. it has not been a research program in a while, so the impact on that on the nasa r&d budget is not that great. nascent has a lot of other parts of its budget that go into more research happen oriented programs. -- hasa has a lot of other parts of its budget. caller: the morning. how are you all?

i have a question for your guest. could you name a few fundamental advances over the last 40 years that have come out of the private sector? fundamental, so that we understand, something like the microchip. host: private sector. guest: research on the microchip started with started with federally-funded science. it is the fundamental levant's -- advance -- adn you have these very large scale integrations that was an effort to put more and more transistors on a chip. a lot of that was funded by darpa.

industrial firms took that research and ran with it to develop their own products, integrated their own intellectual property, and they were able to patent and put to use. that is one. it is hard sometimes to tell the role of federal funding, where it ends, and the role of industry, where it begins. in the biomedical area, a whole range of products. mri devices, a lot of those were developed in the industry. we would not call that fundamental research, but fundamental discoveries that went into the development of that. host: north carolina, john, a democrat. good morning. caller: i have two questions.

with all of the people coming home from the war ending in iraq come there will be a lot more people, unemployed. a lot of research and development that was coming out of mass of and all of that -- nasa and all of that, this research and development was also applied to civilians, microsoft, and all sorts of other things. in other words, the first computer. i am 56, and when i was a kid the first computer was the size of a building and now it is the size of a pea. how much will this affect the research and development funds that affect the medical community and all the other things that do not really have anything to do with defense? host: can you speak to that? guest: i am not sure where the

question was in that. certainly, we have major problems with unemployment in this country. the way to address those problems in the long term is economic growth. for growth and the need to accumulate new knowledge. the 50% of the economic growth in this country since world war ii has been a treated by economists to the advancement of knowledge. investment in research in all areas, and you cannot tell which areas are going to bear fruit in the long run, but it will be the source of our economic growth. i think the returning servicemen and women are going to benefit from that in the same ways as the rest of us. host: last call from louisiana. if you could be brief? caller: quickly, we all know of

eisenhower's admonition of the military industrial complex, but he also spoke about the prospect of domination by the federal employment project allocations and the pile of money is ever present and is to be greatly regarded. i see no better example of this than in solyndra or political considerations are made. i would be interested to hear your comment about that. host: final thoughts from our guest? guest: a very good point. it is difficult for the federal government to manage large projects like that investment. that was really a loan guarantee, not an investment in r&d. the work and there came out of r&d. the point is that it is tough to keep those isolated from politics and it is going to

happen. when there is money involved, prestige involved, it is hard to avoid. host: thinking for -- thank you for helping us understand. albert teich, senior adviser for american association for the advancement of science. we appreciate your time this morning. we will see you tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern for more "washington journal." have a good day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> rode to the white house coverage continues today. herman cain is here in washington wrapping up an appearance at the american enterprise institute come alive right now on c-span2. he will be live on c-span at 1:00 p.m. eastern as he speaks at the national press club. herman cain live at the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern. more from campaign 2012 tonight with a debate to become kentucky's next governor of live at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. up next, vice-president joe biden called republicans hypocrites saying it is like an arsonist moralizing about fire safety. these comments came last week at a florida democratic party convention in orlando. this is about one hour. [applause]

>> thank you. good evening, florida democrats. are you fired up? are you ready to go? we are ready to keep this state loop for barack obama and joe biden. i am so proud to be here tonight in my home state of florida. thank you for your introduction, your commitment, your leadership. you are doing an incredible job. look at this turn out tonight. this is the largest turnout have had at a dinner like this in years, thanks to rod's leadership and organizing skills. we cannot think cannot for his commitment to move toward a record -- moving to florida up for word. thank you so much. let's hear it for rod schmidt.

since becoming dnc chair, i have traveled to 23 states in five months. my friends, let me tell you there is no place like home. it is great to be here at home in the sunshine state with friends and all of you. tonight is so special. it is truly an honor to have a vice-president biden with us. he has been a full partner alongside barack obama helping to move our nation forward passing historic reforms to help the middle class and small businesses to get our country back on track. around his 40 years, he continues to be a problem solver and a tireless fighter for middle-class families in the united states of america. we are just so thrilled to have

him here tonight. let me share how particularly thrilled i am. i was a young girl at the university of florida and in 1988 when i signed up for a presidential campaign for joe biden. and i am so proud to be working here to make sure that barack obama and joe biden the back to the white house to help move this country in the direction we know it needs to go. vice-president, on behalf of all of us here, thank you for your inspiring leadership and your service on behalf of the president and all americans. my fellow democrats, i am here because we have important work to do in florida. in 2012, first and foremost, we need to send president obama and vice president joe biden back for a second term to ensure we continue to move america forward. "must also make sure to agree to

let the bill nelson to the united states senate. and senator nelson is a proven leader for working families and a critical voice for our states many seniors from everglades protection, consumer protection, senator nelson has been there for us and we need to be there for him. are you with me, florida democrats? with the passage of spare district florida, we need to make sure we take control back from our state's from rex scott and his cronies by electing democrats from pensacola to key west in the state legislature, congress, and up and down. we can and will do it with your hard work. there is no other option. my fellow floridians, the contract between who democrats are fighting for and republicans are fighting for has been made very clear. republicans in the u.s. senate have now twice voted to block

part or all of the american jobs act. it is the president's plan to put america back to work and put more money in the pockets of those already working. these are ideas that have previously received bipartisan support. i know that seems for in these days, but ideas like tax relief, keeping teachers in the classroom, police and firefighters on the job, rebuilding bridges and roads. one other thing that should make it easy to pass, his plan is police paid for. - plan is fully paid for. obama's plan is bold. economists from across the spectrum like john mccain toxic former adviser had concluded it would create as many as 1.9 million jobs. let's take a closer look at what this would do corp. board families. it would cut taxes, something

president obama has done 17 times before for small businesses. 17 times. we need to shout that from the rooftops. in addition to vital payroll tax relief, this would create tens of thousands of jobs rebuilding the state's highway and transit systems, modernizing schools throughout the state. the jobs plan would extend unemployment insurance are out of work americans as they work to rebuild their lives and get back on their feet as well as give companies tax breaks if they hire the long-term unemployed or veterans. republicans have blocked all of this. they proposed a so-called alternative plan, but analysts agree the republican plan would do nothing to provide immediate relief for create jobs. according to moody's, it would actually worsen the economic outlook.

nothing has exemplified the contrast between republicans and democrats more than mitt romney during the last two republican debate. at the new hampshire debate, romney called an extension of tax cuts to the middle class "little band-aids" he would allow to expire. do you remember that? this means a bellard family would keep an average of $1,430 in their pockets. does that sound like a little band-aid to you? a multimillionaire like mitt romney does not think that money is important. he is so out of touch that he does not understand that $1,430 four months of groceries or seven months of gasoline. in his own economic proposal, he would cut taxes for the wealthiest americans and corporations but do nothing for middle-class americans. as if that was not enough, he also said in nevada that allowing foreclosures to run their course, cutting off help

for americans facing the loss of their homes and allowing the inventory of troubled mortgages to be reduced faster would allow investors to buy these properties to rent them out. is reckless approach treats the homes of honest americans like nothing more than monopoly pieces that bankers can use to get more wealthy. mitt romney wants to repeal wall street reform and let bankers write their own rules again. do you hear that? is that what we want? he wants to provide the wealthiest americans more generous tax breaks all while telling homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages that they are on their own. to put it simply -- this is unacceptable. do i am counting on you, florida democrats, to tell your friends the truth about these outrageous proposals. as the president emphasized when he announced new executive actions actions that have taken to grow now, we cannot wait we cannot wait for republicans and

congress to keep obstructing efforts to create jobs now. we have a responsibility to the american people to get back to work now and get back on their feet. they simply cannot wait. let me be clear on this point. we need to sing out from the rooftops. we need to tell everyone about this incredible record of accomplishment in decades. he prevented the economy from going over a cliff. we have added 2.6 million jobs in the private sector over the last 19 months. he signed into law historic health care reform eliminating ability for those uninsured. pretty important in florda,

wouldn't you say? he's brought troops home from iraq. this year, they will all be home with their families in the war in iraq will finally end. finally. this is a vote i was very proud to cast. he put an end to the discriminatory policy called don't ask, don't tell. [applause] he bought hard to ensure we keep our promise to veteran and military spouses to provide for our troops not just in the battlefield but also after they returned home. ladies, and he has enacted the fair pay act to help women get equal pay we deserve to make sure that we hold employers to

do not treat us fairly's feet to the fire. i am not saying republicans cannot have a jobs agenda, it is just their job is focused on one job -- barack obama. democrats care about america and's jobs. we have seen smear campaign after smear campaign, millions of dollars in secret money used to support soft attacks on democrats. obama could have taken the easy road, but that is not what leaders do. he made the decisions that were hard, but right. there are some who want to play politics. they would rather wait until the 2012 election and ignore those struggling now. as the president has said the next election is one year away. if you are living week to week, you do not have one year to wait. we cannot wait, can we? i say to the republicans, take

down, stop playing partisan politics, so we can get this done right now and do this together. if you do not, we will do it without you. [applause] florida democrats, we did our job in 2008 and delivered florida, a great victory. our job is not complete. the challenges we face were not created overnight and will not be solved overnight. and the president obama's second term, -- does that not sound good? it sounds good to me. we need to build an economy where every american can find a good job to let themselves get ahead. we need to end our dependence on foreign oil and take steps to fight climate change and global warming. we need to keep rebuilding our infrastructure, improve schools, and implement health care reform. that is the question before us today.

will we do these things? will we? of course we will. we needed to fight hard all the way to november 2012. over the next year, we will have a debate between competing political parties, but more than that we will have a debate between completing -- competing priorities. let me tell you what my priorities are. as a mother, i believe a child needs an education more than a million any tax break and a -- [applause] as representative of for many retired americans, i believe protecting medicare for seniors is more important than protecting subsidies for corporate jets. [applause] as a wife, neighbor, and friend, i believe our message to the middle-class should become "we are on your side," not, "you are on your own."

these are my priorities, the president's priorities, the vice president's priorities, senator nelson's priorities. they have nothing to do with what party we belong to and everything to do with who we are as people. every day, you hear republicans arguing that in tough times, we cannot afford to not invest in these priorities, but we need the truth. we cannot afford not to. we are democrats because we believe in the face of adversity it is america's job to lead the way. to those who say we cannot afford to be optimistic, our job to settle for second place, we say this -- americans do not settle come up floridians do not settle. americans do not quit. floridians do not quit. as long as obama is in the white house, their government will not quit on them. i do not know about you, but

these seem like common-sense principles and to me. nothing radical. there will be ups and downs. there will be days when it feels like we cannot do anything wrong and days like it feels like we cannot do anything right, but here is my promise to you. no one is going to outworked us. no one. i cannot keep that promise by myself. i need you to help me to keep it. we need to work harder than we ever have before. now is the time to roll up our sleeves, dig deeper into your pockets than you ever thought you could, and make sure that you hoist floridians on your shoulders and carried them through the streets, door-to- door, neighbor to neighbor, talk about the difference we have, the direction we could go on if we continue down that path that barack obama has taken us, the path to prosperity to fight for the middle-class and give them a

chance to succeed, or we could go backwards to the days when corporate america was allowed to write their own rules, the priority of the government to keep the wind at the back of the wealthiest and most fortunate. do you want to go back there? i sure do not. the remember 2008 election night? i remember the incredible feeling i had come at a historic election. 2008 was historic. we will finish what we started and we will take florida and america in a new and better direction. courted democrats, we need you. the president and the vice president needs you. i need you to help deliver florida in 2012 and keep us borrow. it will not -- and keep us blue. every american will win. like i said, 2008 election night was historic, but if you do not want to go backward and make

sure that we can move forward and give everyone a fair chance to make sure the next generation, my children, your children, had a fair shot at the american dream, remember 2008 was historic, but let's make 2012 personal. it is personal. on, on, on to victory. thank you, florida democrat. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome senator bill nelson, jill biden, and the vice

president of united states, joe biden. [applause] ♪ ♪ hold on, i'm comin ♪ >> good evening, democrats. you remember an election is like driving a car. you want to go forward, you put it in "d," if you want to go backwards, you put it in "r." everybody sit down and enjoy yourselves. we have a distinguished guest here. i just want to thank you for the great privilege you have given me of