we will also talk with a rich lowrie, the senior economic adviser for herman cain's presidential campaign. and then a discussion on the history on ms. magazine. abigail ♪ host: president obama be used today for the g-20 summit and its fears that the bureau of debt crisis could bring the world into another recession. we will get your take on the euro debt crisis. who should lead the democrats? for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002.

for independents, 202-628-0205. welcome, everyone, to "the washington journal." we will begin with "the new york times," this morning.

host: the piece goes on to say --

host: we want to get your take on this this morning. the european debt crisis, who should lead them of "the washington times," also has this on their front page this morning --

host: kevin is our first phone call on this. frankfort, ky. who should lead on this and european debt crisis? caller: i am on the air? host: yes. caller: i do not know that anyone can. i disagree with obama saying that that is the main act of a problem here in the united states. i do not know that the greeks are willing to actually work with anybody in the grass of the european union. it really bothers me that they have determined that they will put that to a referendum. that does not seem very wise at

all. host: does that not tie back to our economy? we saw the dow jones in this country plummet after news broke -- caller: let's not get into my opinion of what i think of wall street. wall street is a strange from the rest of this country. if you are going by what wall street dozen or thinks, there is no reason to go about doing anything. they are the rich. they are the money hungry, greedy, and nasty capitalists who control everything. i do not understand why we have to kowtow to any of the aircraft -- their crap. there are millions of americans here who are really hurting. i do not see that anything is being done to help.

the president has tried. the republicans are in no way interested in helping anyone than the rich in greek on wall street. if wall street wants to fail or do whatever they want, they will get away with it because they know that they can. host: all right, donald, north carolina. your thoughts? caller: your previous caller is symptomatic of the problem in the united states. just because he is not on wall street, not working hard enough, he is crying. so, that is the entire reason to tear down the system? but that is not why i am calling. unfortunately, we are seeing the keynesian chickens come home to read -- home to roost. we will not be a leader, we will be sitting in the back, thanks

to president obama and his policies. host: let me step in. do you think that the u.s. should be leading on this? caller: the u.s. should be leading on everything. but that is not how you blend in and make everyone in the world community feel good. they have already bad mouthed us so much, guess what? we already rolled over with this administration. what happened is -- last year, in april, china, other countries, they all met over there in the south china sea to discuss alternative currencies, because of the shakiness of the united states currency. host: they came together in shanghai? caller: yes. that is exactly what i am talking about. the bricks summit.

that is what the united states should be worried about. if everything gets so shaky that they decide to act, and everyone is worried about wall street because they are babies, you might wake up one morning and because of this solution, the world economy might have moved on to another currency. you are talking a catastrophic value drop for the economy. that is what the american economists and the american people need to be economists. host: by bric we're talking about brazil, russia, india, and china. caller: remember the bretton conference, after world war ii?

if i am correct, the conference of in new hampshire, people need to research that and see what they talked about. now they have got the leverage. so, if we need to watch what is going on with that. unfortunately, thanks to our president, we are writing in the back seat. if they want to cry about what is going on in this economy, they can just look to the white house. host: jim, conn., your thoughts. caller: people on wall street can afford to put money and ideas into the world, and they need to do so. but i think that the bowles simpson commission that was a part of your television show it was good to see them at work

again. putting their report out of the 23rd, i think that the commission puts out a report without much time. they need to use that as a ground work for the work that they have to do ahead of them. host: we cover that hearing. it was aired again before this morning's open quote washington journal." we will show you a little bit of it -- this morning's "washington journal." we will show a little bit more of that, later this morning. on the greek prime minister --

"a vote of no-confidence could topple the government enforce a new election. european stock markets were down on tuesday. then there is the situation in france. nicolas sarkozy has worked closely with angelo markell, a move criticized by some in france. a move to secure the road appears far from over. sarkozy may feel the wrath of french voters, weary of economic hardship. then you have the chinese, europe is asking the chinese to support the hero, a role that would have been played by the united states in past years. china sees an opportunity for greater influence while u.s.

politicians and europe for economic fallout in next year's elections. then this headline from "the washington post." "caution on the european union plan."

host: richard, democratic caller, indiana. who should lead it in the european debt crisis? caller: angela merkel, sarkozy, barack obama. these so-called leaders are just there for the show. the true people that should come out of the shadows are the same ones who are running this world economy. corporations. i would prefer that you just have these leaders sit back. bring in your general electric and ford motor co's. let us know what they think. this country lost 55,000 manufacturing of -- i am sorry,

55,000 manufacturing companies in the last 10 years. and we are wondering why we have a debt problem? we have a debt problem because we do not make anything anymore. thank you. host: we will keep taking your phone calls on this throughout the first 45 minutes of this morning's show. neil irwin, economic writer, is joining us on the phone right now. he is here to talk to us about ben bernanke's upcoming fed meeting. what do you expect him to say? caller: the economy has gotten better since their last meeting. nothing great, nothing fantastic. there will be speculation on what the economy will do over the next few years.

those numbers probably will not be very good at all. they will talk about communication. what the fed is aiming for in the economy and what they might do to adjust their policies, going forward. even if we hear about what they are aiming for, it will be the subject of a special policy meeting. we will get a sense of whether or not they have arrive at consensus. host: what is quantitative easing? it could the federal reserve chairman talk about qe3? caller: their normal policy tool, short-term interest rates, has been in effect for three years now. they have been trying to encourage growth, creating money

to buy stocks and, in some cases, mortgage securities and treasury bonds. qe2 was launched last november. they did that in june. the question is, will they do it again? will the economy still be seen as weak and need to press forward further? perhaps oriented towards mortgages and housing. it does not look like they will have any decisions on that today. we will have to wait to see what they have to say in a crisis.

host: what impact will today's meeting have on the federal reserve board and the news conference? caller: certainly, the european crisis seems like something that will never end. every time you think it might be ending, another switch happens. that is what happened over the last few days. it felt like a stable place, then there was a question over whether greece was willing to overtake the changes brought by its creditors. the fed is not going to adjust monetary policy based on these headlines. that said, the fact that europe has been a mess and that that ways and u.s. markets is very much at the center of what they have been dealing with.

how do we try to keep the economy growing, even as things are kind of scary overseas? host: is this something -- is there something that the federal reserve chairman could say to try to ease the markets, given the news from greece? caller: they are very much in the one day reaction markets. they are not going to worry too much about what happens in one day's trading session. at the same time, but i want to do is, generally, if the u.s. economy is on the right track, we will do all right. part of the way these policies work is by strengthening financial markets. part of how they may have

helped, they would argue, helps the economy, is the strong rally that was seen before its completion. i do not think that the chairman will be too hung up on last few days of the stock market. but what has happened to the stock market over the last few months is very much important. the inclination of corporations to invest and expand. host: veal or when, economic reporter with "the washington post -- neil iriwn, economic reporter with the "the washington post." thank you. caller: thank you. host: inside of "the wall street journal," this morning, " inability to escape the debt

crisis." host: he goes on to write --

host: east orange, new jersey, republican line. the european debt crisis, who should lead to? caller: it is obvious who should not lead. the greek prime minister made a political decision when he called for a referendum. at this point, i think that the people there should be leading on this issue would be any country who has substantial bond holdings with greece.

they are more in a position to make rational decisions. i guess with obama, representing the united states, then the chinese representative, and several other countries in the european sound. -- zone. host: they do go on to talk about that in this article, who should lead.

host: virginia, george, independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can hear you. caller: first of all, everything we are talking about, you have to find out where the money goes in the imf. who is controlling it.

who are the money masters? you will see that three or four families from the world. host: surely, hopkins, in vienna, go ahead. caller: we are so connected to these banks in europe that are having all of these problems. we are having problems right here, with main street. jones and his cronies. they are doing it here just to see how far they can push us, the american people. it is time for us to start focusing on our own troubles. if wall street wants to keep investing over there, it is too bad that they lose their money.

host: the front page of "the new york times," more on the herman cain sexual harassment story. host: here is "the baltimore sun," this morning. "clarifying, not shifting." host: by the way, newspapers are reporting this morning that the

second accuser would like to speak out, but she is barred from doing so because of an agreement that she signed. mississippi, david, independent caller. go ahead. caller: president obama said that congress is holding up everything and we have to do it ourselves. there is not a city in this nation that does not have emptied buildings where the furniture has gone to mexico. we had 43 million people on welfare. take those people on welfare, who are already getting free medicaid and food stamps, make them productive. make our clothes again. we are not using common sense to run the country anymore. put people to work in those

places and pay them minimum wage, just like the mayor did in new york. they did not want to work. these people want to work. host: columbus, ohio. jackson, democratic caller. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. it seems that the people do not understand the situation. basically, they are telling the world that they will decide the terms of their bailout. our national debt is now approaching $15 trillion, if it has not passed that already. it is almost larger now than the gross national product or gross domestic product.

in civil society, when a debtor cannot repay their debts, what does the creditor do? they foreclose. without sounding too apocalyptic, who is to say that the chinese would not attempt to foreclose on us one day? oppose all right. we are taking your phone calls, but we can also take your comments and tweets. if you go to facebook, c-span, we can take your comments there. we can also take your tweets. twitter.com/c-spanwj is the handle. here is one -- host: that is our question for you, the european debt crisis, who should lead in this situation? president obama leaves for france this morning.

who should be the leader on this? here is the front page of "the washington times," this morning. "statue unveiled of ronald reagan yesterday at the memorial airport." "it cost about $900,000." we were there, you can see the footage on your screen. "card to buy the same sculptor who did the other sculptures in d.c. in california." republican line, good morning. caller: when it comes to leadership for the euro zone, there is no leadership. they did not do what they were supposed to do.

they were supposed to create a central bank. they were supposed to create on structures. they were also supposed to create structures to force countries into a hearing that they set up. the fact that these three principles were not created and we are now running down the yellow brick road, it tells us to run through. host: they have the european central bank. caller: not in the way that it was supposed to be structured, similar to the fed. it was supposed to be able to print money. those were supposed to be euro bonds, the same issue we are struggling with now. now they are in a process where germany benefited because of was the strongest of the manufacturers. therefore, germany needs to bail them out.

the u.s. should never be throwing money into this particular pot. host: debbie, albuquerque. caller: i have not talked to you in two years. good to see you. host: welcome back. caller: i only know what i have read. the workers were bailed out, rather than wall street or the financial institutions. they were subsidized by the government and spending was able to continue.

if i am not mistaken, germany has shored up all of europe. she has shown wonderful leadership. we could use people like her over here. as far as one gentleman calling in to make commentary about the greeks not knowing what is going on, i think they know plenty about what is going on. that is why they are in the streets. there financials have been attacked and destroyed, just like the fed has used the people over here. host: in the obituary section of "the new york times," you may have heard that the mother of hillary clinton has died.

"mrs. clinton credited her mother with giving her and love that for higher learning, a curiosity for the larger world -- host: that is the obituary section of "the new york times." republican line, california. early morning for you. your thoughts on this debt crisis? caller: i was talking about what they should be doing and who should lead. you are the most financially responsible person that i know.

it made me think that the world should look at this issue, these countries that are economically superior. host: alright, independent line, oklahoma. what do you think? caller: choosing to stay out of this ordeal with the highest valued currency, i am just curious. host: who did you ask about? caller: great britain. they should have a voice, since their currency is number one. host: here is an article for you in "the new york times," business section.

host: that is the business section of "the new york times," if you are interested. "2012 politics, the super pak is running an ad for the repair a presidential campaign." take a look. >> this father was in the military. his mother was in years. rick perry served in the military. a solid conservative with

manufacturing exports and lawsuit reform. the result? 1 billion new jobs. rick perry. conservative leadership. host: "usa today," has some accuracy reports on the advertisement. host: annapolis, arthur, republican line. who should leave?

caller: we have our own problems. the base of one discussing to be understood by anyone. i watched the debate last night between gibbs, simpson, and the republican side. the real problem is that we have allowed the chinese government to conduct a successful trade war of the usa over a period of years. until we change that around and let the manufacturing companies compete against the chinese, we are not going to get out. commercial airlines, airplanes, and so on.

wind turbines are now being manufactured in china. we all know that story. the balance of payment, until that those positive for the united states, we will be continuing with this problem. we must let our factories and manufacturers compete. host: warrants, democratic caller, georgia. good morning. your thoughts on this? caller: the simple answer is, they've done took everything, that is what it all board down to.

host: that controversial oil pipeline from canada to the gulf of mexico, the report is in open "the washington post," this morning. president obama will be making the decision himself. other news this morning, from open quote the washington times," "exotic animals are banned from traveling circuses." host: a follow-up to that story, out of ohio, on the person that owns the exotic animals. in campaign 2012 news, "the key to florida for the gop."

host: miami, florida, what do you have? caller: we hear so much about this being obama's fault. the problem, the situation is that we are a global economy. now you see this situation in europe where the people have been promised a future pensions,

and now they cannot pay the bills. europe has to lead. with our money in the european markets, the g-20 summit is coming up. we know that if they fall, our economy will be affected. we may have issues with jobs. investors are scared off. we need to recognize the context that we are living in. host: representatives from leaving, rep nations, according

to this, the international monetary fund "provides clean up and corruption control in the most vulnerable countries." you can see it on the right side, the g-20 nations represent 85% of the world's output. as we go over the countries that make up the g-20, we will hear from michael, pensacola, florida. good morning, you are on the air. caller: all that i can tell you is that all of these problems we're having in greece and europe, it is due to these corporations. the statement that i would like to make, it will lead to world

war iii. host: a couple of quick headlines for you. from the front page of op quote usa today," "creeping -- congress travel junkets creep up." "bank ofimore sun, 0 " america dropped." on the herman cain story -- host: we will be talking to one

of the minds behind 9-9-9, but lowry, this morning. you can call in with your questions about 9-9-9 than. good morning. caller: all of this negative stuff is being put out, like the first article that you read. it should not have even been published. i think they have mentioned his name about 50 times. i do not know if this is c-span or your program that does this negative stuff. caller: we are just reading the newspaper -- host: we are just reading the newspapers in washington. it is not an endorsement of what

they are writing. caller: but you become an in a blur when you put that kind of stuff out there. that kind of stuff just continues at the negative stuff. i watch c-span religiously every morning. i have not seen anything about republican obstructionism. i know that you are going to kick me off, but i am not sure it the c-span is just your program. host: we got your point. coming up next, we will be talking to congressman bill pascrell on the deficit reduction committee. after that, we will be talking with rich lowry and one of the minds behind the herman cain 9- 9-9 plan. new hampshire is scheduled to announce its primary date today.

look for coverage on c-span.org about that. we will be back in a minute with bill pascrell, democrat of new jersey. ♪ >> please continue your statement. you will receive your answer in due course. host: i am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. >> a former governor of illinois, he twice ran as the

democratic nominee for president and lost. from the stevenson family home in illinois, live at 8:00 p.m. eastern this sunday. for more, go into the web site for the series, c-span.org /thecontenders. >> when i for started, i had a rejection letter from every one that i applied to, which was kind of cool. >> his account of mark tucker byrd and facebook was adapted for the screen. "bringing down the house," followed mit students from las vegas. his latest, "sex on the moon," follows the stolen nasa safe

full of moon rocks. follow him on c-span 2, book tv. every weekend, the people in the events that document the american story. this weekend, with the allman of the decorative and fine arts, rarely seen outside of the white house. from "the civil war," jeff shaara. and following barry goldwater in the archival film history. look for a schedule in the in box of c-span alert. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman bill pascrell

sets of the budget and ways and means committee. hear it -- he is here to talk about the deficit reduction committee. i want to begin with the so- called super committee. here is the headline from "the new york times." "justices must not fail and are urged to compromise." -- "that is the panel is warned that it must not fail and is urged to compromise." here is what they said yesterday to the committee. >> i have worked closely with almost all of you on both sides of the aisle. i have great respect for each of you individually. but collectively, i am worried that you are going to fail. fail the country. >> we said that we would not get into that business of tax increase so that grover would not have a shock or a stroke.

we said that we would go around him and let him rant. i will tell you one thing, if he and the aarp are in thrall to those groups, we have not got a prayer, and neither have you. host: not only talking about the tax side of it, but the social security side of that, aarp, and the campaigns they are running. guest: i am glad that you showed that. these are two american patriots from both sides of the aisle, who have worked together before. i think that many of those ideas, we should adopt. specifically, what are the consequences if this super- committee charges congress to come up with a plan by the 23rd? it is not far from where we sit

right now. we are saying that everything is on the table, including social security. democrats will never agree. maybe one or two, but democrats will never agree to even touch social security and medicare unless everything is on the table. that is why, when you look at the comparison of what the recommended last year, and and what the democrats have proposed, and what the republicans have proposed, there is a huge difference in how much we want to cut out of the deficit. in their plan, democrats want to cut the deficit down to $4 trillion. yet the republican plan, they want to cut over $3 trillion over 10 years. we are taking a balanced

approach, which is all that this is about. host: democrats on the super committee have come out with some kind of initial proposal. $1.30 trillion. $400 billion in medicare cuts. $400 billion in medicare cuts. -- appropriations cuts. guest: i certainly would not support that. host: it seems like everything is on the table. guest: well, everything is on the table. if everything is not on the table, i will not even talk about it. that is how i feel about it. to me, that is the contract that we made with the senior citizens of this country.

although i do not support that item other, there are other ways do affect and change social security and they need to be changed. a shorter span of life at this time, there are many options that we have before us. without them, they become more negative. host: you said that the initial proposal was orchestrated. what did you mean? caller: you have got to put -- guest: you have got to put out a plan and say -- look what we have done. i know all the democrats on the super-committee. sending it over to the cbo to

see what they do with it, by december 23 -- i do not know if that was in their minds at all. i think that we need to put the super-committee to the wall. they are not blessed by any beatific vision. the end product must be acceptable. not to the majority of a few, but we have to have a decent majority that will send a clear message to the united states that we mean business. on a piece of paper, it could mean very little. we need to be robust about this. guest: how would you serve -- describe the differences in the

democratic party? significant? guest: why be a democrat? this is the nature of the beast. i think that democrats understand that we want to be a something done, but we will not sacrifice our value in principles. putting it on the table as well, just some mornings. we have already cut $1.30 trillion. remember last december? we added $1 billion from the 2011 budget. we were supposed to get one year of of the debacle of the election? we accepted these cuts to move forward. this is the second place as the

super committee in order for us to have a balanced approach. paying down that debt, something we have never missed before, on the edge. on the press of this, we have to make the decision. we have to make the decision in the next month to do this. we propose that the super- committee put out a plan that could be destroyed or proposed by december 23. this is the second phase. but then there is a third phase. what will we say to those who have undermined much of our economic base, besides the tax cuts that the democrats like to talk about? much of that money went to the majority. if we let all of those tax cut

to expire -- that was the price this past december of giving the tax cuts another year of breath. if we allow them to expire, that helps us a long ways. i am not ready at this time to cut taxes or push them aside. not with this economy. not with these lawyers telling us what they will do and what they will not do. host: here is what john boehner had to say about the work of the deficit reduction committee. >> the united states faces the ongoing possibility of downgrades, thereby increasing our interest costs on the nearly $15 trillion in debt that

we have. we face the possibility of downgrades because of our failure to deal decisively with this stunning epidemic in our government. specifically, our failure to deal with entitlements, spending trillions more over the next decade than what we bring in. everyone knows that we cannot solve the debt crisis without making structural changes to our entitlement programs. you know it, i know it, president obama knows it. without these exchanges, the programs will not be there for your generation. and you need them. and i think that everyone understands that. the fact of the matter is that strengthening these programs will be good for our country. nothing could send a more reassuring message to the

markets. guest: john boehner should know about spending epidemics since he went through one. between 2001 and 2008, when his party was the majority party, and i do not want to give sailors a bad name because i love them, but they spend like drunken sailors. spending epidemic -- they invented it. we are trying to address this in tough economic times. it is one thing to do with financial problems in the government when things are going well. it is another thing to deal with them when so many people are out of work, some many people are facing poverty, so many people are losing their homes. oh, he is very familiar with the epidemic. and i think we are going to

have a solvent social security up until 2035, 2036, i am very secure and very aware of what the "washington post" wrote the other day. medicare -- we will make the changes necessary for medicare. they beat us up on that in last year's election, greta, that the democrats were going to cut medicare. if you read what was in the health care act and took the time to pull it apart and see where we were making those cuts, it had nothing to do with the general population. he knows that and i know it and that is where we are at this point. and by the way, one more about entitlements. interesting from what you heard from our great leader, and he is a good person, but what we heard from him is that he wants to fix the entitlements.

that is a reverse. these guys were trying to pull them apart and destroy them just five years ago. they wanted to take social security and privatize it. they wanted to take medicare and try to privatize that. that is what they were basically attempting to do. he has gotten to the point in his reverse that he is willing to accept the existence of so security and medicare, two great entitlements for america. host: he referred to the sunday edition of the "washington post." guest: it is a great newspaper. i thought they were dead wrong in what they were trying to say in the article. the $46 billion, i think it was, shortfall -- whatever you want

to call it for social security is in part taken from the rainy day fund. so social security does not add to the deficit at this country. it is a separate fund. it has nothing to do with the general fund. host: they are talking about the trust fund. guest: in cases like that, it is like a rainy day fund. when there are not as many people working in you are not collecting as much money, so you're not paying social security if you are out of a job, i will take it that. but that money is being replaced. it is being used to be -- to buy american bonds. i understand what it was trying to say, that things are tough even with social security, but they give the wrong impression. they are giving the idea that it has run out of money already. it has not.

it has -- it is an insurance that has worked since its inception in the roosevelt administration. host: which you support increasing the age? -- would you support increasing the age? guest: i would not. caller: why don't you tell the american people the truth? you're only cutting the increases. i spent $2,000 and then i say, well, along less than 1900 dollars, i am not cutting anything. tell the truth. guest: i am telling you the truth. just take a look at how many police officers had been laid off in the united states, how many firefighters have been laid off, how many teachers. the pressure on local

communities to make ends meet is becoming greater and greater and greater. the republicans, their whale -- their way of dealing with this is cutting the money. cops are part of the homeland security in this country. fireman, the same thing. he empties, the same thing. everything has a consequence -- emt's, the same thing. everything has a consequence. they are doing away with the program and i do not accept that. i know what you're talking about. i've already shown you one of the cuts. host: indiana, joyce, good morning. i think we lost her. let's go to illinois, stephen, a republican. caller:, good morning, congressman.

what do social security reductions have to do with the bottom 10% such as meat, the lower end of the social security program? guest: ilana speaking with? stephen, a lot of people depend on social security every month. it sounds like you are depending on and god bless you. my job as a congressman is to maintain that program so that you can have some basic -- i think it is $11,000 per year, which will be going to $14,000. you do not get an increase unless there is an increase in inflation significant enough. i do not support what is being proposed, by the way, to use a different formula to cut the amount of dollars coming to you. i do not think that is the way

to deal with social security. i do not think that is the way to refine it or reform it. i will assure you that i will vote against it. host: ted, an independent, atlanta, georgia. caller: and nothing will get soft, it doesn't matter what kind of band-aid you put on anything, until the legislative branch realizes that they cannot spend more money than they've taken. you are just -- then they take in. you're just dancing around the side there. guest: remember in the last three years of the clinton administration, we did that. democrats and republicans came together. newt gingrich and bill clinton came together, believe it or not. there were able to address that issue. it is very possible to do.

it has been done and we can do it again. but if one side is saying no to everything and the other side is intransigents in not changing everything, then we have got problem. we are not here to have a standoff, which we have right now. i hope the super committee can break through the logjam and come up with something that can get a good majority in the house. host: dan, a republican. caller: i think we need to dump all the political correctness and recognize the fact that there are millions and millions of illegal aliens leeching off the medicare system due to the anchor baby phenomenon, and funded by charitable organizations like that catholic charities that provide

paralegal service for the illegal aliens, knowing full well that they are illegal. why can we fix that -- why can we not fix that? guest: i know that they have reached out to people who need help. a fire truck comes up in your neighborhood, dan, and there is a fire. they do not call out through a megaphone, are you all legal, because if not, we're not going to put the house out. i am applying that to the basic thing that you just said. illegal aliens are human beings. we have to face the subject straight on. i think the president is trying to be honest. more illegal aliens have been deported because of applying the law and in this president's tenure than the president before.

he signed up to do a job but he wants a better solution. i think that is something that we all want. we can never remove 12 million illegal aliens. by that time we remove them, we will have 12 million more. we need strong borders and we need -- we have a right to know who is coming into this country. for homeland security purposes, so we need a plan but we need to deal with people on a human level, day today. host: get the deficit reduction committee has a deal that includes social security reform such as raising the fage, which is support across the board cuts? guest: no, because i listened to secretary panetta in terms of the defense cuts. he knows how few resources he will have in defending the nation when he sees that we will have military on one side and

non-defense and the other side, 50/50, i think that would destroy the defense department. i certainly want to do away with the waste and fraud in the defense department contracts. i have been fighting that since i have been in congress. but we have to defend the country and be realistic. i would not be in favor of sequestration. host: so he became down to about where you were pivotal, would you vote for a deal -- so it it came down to of those were your pivotal, would you vote for a deal? -- so if it came down to a vote where you were pivotal, would you vote for deal? >> i would have to look at it. caller: i've been trying to get through to c-span for about a month now.

i watched every morning. i draw a small social security check. but my main problem is i see the senators -- grassley was on their couple of weeks ago, he himself is getting far and subsidies. he himself is drawing so security and medicare. -- social security and medicare. by all means, i think social security and medicare and medicaid should be means-tested. host: let's take your point of means testing. guest: they are means tested already, and should we go further, we should take all look at it. i think the gentleman is

absolutely right. there was a time when farm subsidies were critical to the agricultural industry in this country. my votes would show that. it is hard to do away with those subsidies. i think they are unnecessary. what we're doing many times is making the rich richer, greta, just as when we look at oil royalties. at one time it was necessary for the drilling prospects, but i do not think it is necessary anymore. i do not think it is a huge part of deficit cutting, but it needs to be taken into consideration. host: and you are in a farming state. guest: part of it. we cannot have any farms in the eighth district.

host: chicago, kathleen, you are on the air. guest: how are you, kathleen? caller: pretty good, and i am glad that you're on. i think the whole deficit- reduction from day one was a smokescreen with the republicans. we were in too much trouble for them to start saying that they would cut spending drastically. i also have an issue with how they claim that president obama has gotten everything, that he is one of the first two years, when we had control of congress and the senate and the white house. well, you know what? somebody needs to explain to the american people what filibuster is. they need to repeat that every single day. guest: let me say this to you. certainly the arcane rules of

the senate do not help us. but you need 60 votes just to get a bill to be considered. if you do not have 60 of one party or the other, you cannot get it out. that is certainly a sign on non- cooperation. if anyone thinks that president obama has gotten everything that he wanted, when you look at what he projected in the very beginning, the recovery act -- not one republican voted for it in february 2009. and so for those who say that there is no proof that the recovery act has improved the employment opportunities of americans, they do not know what they're talking about. 2.5 million people got jobs. if they beyond that two years? no, it did not.

was it enough? no, it was not. but there is no question in my mind that he is fighting for america. we are democrats and that is what we are all about. host: this tweaked for you. -- tweet for you. guest: there is a good faith argument in that proposition. however, right now the return on what you are putting in and what you are taking out is very different. you've been on average $750,000 and you take out $900,000. it was not to be an interesting account. it was meant to help people who are in dire need. i would take a look and still put means testing on the table, at least for the future.

host: given that people are living longer and getting more out of their investment than they put in, why not raise the retirement age? guest: we are living longer. we have to take care of more people. let's say that we raise it and continued to go up to 69. i think the fact that people living longer, what are we going to deal with in that period of time that they are not working? what do they do to keep up with inflation? i have some questions about that. host: brooklyn, bernie, a republican. caller: i have two questions for you. before the super committee, there was the sense and-bolts committee -- simpson-bowles

committee mandated by the president. they came up with solutions that seemed to impress the super committee when they testified yesterday. why did the president ignored their solutions? that is my first question. and i want to make a quick second question. how many years have you been in congress? guest: that is easier. , i like then planne president to have been stronger on that. it happened when we were dealing with not only the deficit but also unemployment. all of this has to do with jobs. there are quite a show or five different plans out there to deal with the deficit. i am not going to vote for a plan that i know is going to put more jobs at risk. because jobs are the bottom

line. if you do not get people back to work, none of this matters. social security has less money. people are not able to pay any taxes if they are not in a job. and if all they can get is an unemployment check. mpson-bowles, i think there were great ideas in there. they cut -- they touched so security and medicare and very different ways and everything was on the table. i think that we're looking at it began and i think you will see the fingerprints all over the proposal. even if it is not their proposal, that is what i think. host: that two chairman he was referring to testified before

the deficit reduction committee yesterday. if you are interested in hearing them in their own words, go to c-span.org. guest: i do not agree with everything they are saying, but that is beside the point. hearing what you want to hear, that is wrong. if we do not break this logjam, we do not have to except everything. host: alice rivlin and pete domenici also testified. caller: what happens to the social security that someone pays but they died before they can use it? guest: if the spouse is not there, then that money goes back into the treasury department. host: this headline in the "washington post."

guest: i am sorry, it goes back into the social security fund. it says here, a quick agreement on spending priorities for the areas of government in the bill. then they passed a resolution -- guest: no substitute for passing a budget. when we were in control, we did not pass that budget in time because we could not get 60 votes in the senate to do anything. on the other hand, we need to adjust it. we will have the appropriations and we will debate on the floor today or tomorrow whether we can even have a program.

as a reflection of this big huge debate going on, that is one issue that i feel relief enunciates the differences between the two parties. i would rather talk about the similarities. i believe that there are people in the republican party that support that program, and we do not have a budget. we're working the appropriations bills and i like this idea. host: dan, an independent. collor and i think you have me on the wrong show. i'm supposed to be calling bill pascrell on the "washington journal." and somehow i am on a different program. what program is this? host: what are you trying to say?

caller: i do not know which represented did you have. i would like to ask him if he'd reference the rainy day fund, i want to know what that really exists. guest: it does. that money is in the social security trust fund. we do need to deal with that and unemployment and people unable to pay anything. so socialn't security a cash and, cash out accounting system? guest: no, it is an insurance plan. we pay into that insurance plan. it is something that is guaranteed based upon the inflation at the time. host: built in georgia.

-- bill in georgia. caller half of america is getting a check from the government. can you tell me where in the constitution that half the people of the united states will take care so that the other half of the people can afford to live here? guest: it does not say that in the constitution. we are one nation under god and we need to take care of people. it does not mean that people live off the earth or off of charity. it means that our brothers and sisters are americans like everybody else. there is a way that we can take care of those situations, not for life, but for the period of time, and it does not mean that if you are poor, you are not necessarily american. but you do not pay income taxes,

you pay all other taxes and it is a greater portion of your in town then if you pay income tax. i know exactly what you're getting to and i pray for you every night but what you're saying is wrong. caller: you are one of the individuals that make me so optimistic along with msnbc and senator clinton and joe biden. you make me so optimistic about this country. but this is america -- guest: this is america. you have to be optimistic. caller: a breath of fresh air. 33% of the congress is truly controlled by an individual named russia bought -- rush limbaugh that cannot even own a football franchise. our former president would call

him on a regular basis. guest: i did not believe russia lombok controls -- rush limbaugh controls that much of the republican party. i think he is old hat. host: another tweet from a viewer. guest: i would have to know the circumstances. host: could you explain windfall provisions? guest: i would have to think what she means by that. i do not think she means -- durso social security check, and depending on the inflation rate, i do not call that a windfall.

i think we should do something about that in dealing with changes in social security. there are items not considered. so i'm not quite sure what she mean by windfall. and a lot of other items. host: edward in florida, go ahead. caller: i wanted to thank you for your stance on social security. i have a question about the filibuster. could you walk through how it works? guest: that is not such a bad idea. we ought to bring you down here as the strategist. let us debate, hour after hour, not such a bad idea. after all, the congress was

invented so that we had this debate back and forth and come to a resolution. if it does not lead to a resolution, then it is a waste of time. on the filibuster, you could talk and talk and talk and prevented ever coming up to a vote. i think that is arcane. it is also arcane that you need 60 votes in the senate in order to even bring of bowed out. that is arcane. in the house of representatives, some of our rules need to change. but there is no question about it -- the house can move quicker. the senate moves at a very slow pace. as george tenet said, sometimes democracy is like a huge drag. host: the kamp has recommended

-- david kamp has reduced -- favored reducing corporate tax. guest: i can consider it as a package. once you talk about one thing, you need to talk about other forms of revenue. dave camp is a very astute chairman. he is fair. i call him fair. i think he will give his best shot on the super committee. he is a member of the super committee. i hope that he can act somewhat independently. republicans have better disciplined than democrats. weird democrats, but the fact of the matter is, -- we are

democrats, but the fact of the matter is, you've seen it so many other times, i wish we had that kind of discipline. maybe it is good that we do not, because we are responding to what the people's needs are, and that is what makes us different than the other side. they are good people and patriots, but you have to come to a decision. as my wife would say. host: one last " call for you. gregg, republican column. -- greg, republican column. caller: it is not republicans fault that he did not get things passed because they had 60 votes. you're saying the republicans are blocking things.

guest: we did not have 60. caller: why do the republicans always need to come to the democrats? guest: let me say this. most of the legislation i introduced is bipartisan because i believe in it. check out my record. it is important to work with each other. but when the other side is entrenched and there is no movement allowed, this is the way it is going to be, do you think that mr. boehner started out -- there were 750,000 people unemployed that month and we have, long way since, people do not want to recognize good things are happening. not fast enough, but good things

are happening. but from the very beginning, the only object is to defeat the president. they do not want this president to have one victory, that is the fact on the matter. he is not right and everything and i are not right. but the point of the matter is, i think he has been right on some things, and i think people should have an open mind. i supported president bush on many matters on which i thought he was right. i even doted on him when i had to apologize to my constituency -- voted with him when i had to apologize to my constituency. if you think you know all the answers, you do not. host: bill pascrell, thank you for talking to our viewers. coming up, we will talk about the magazines. the oral history of ms. magazine

is our topic this morning. but coming up next, rich lowrie , one of the economic minds behind herman cain's plan. but first, an update from c-span radio. >> julian assange has lost his court fight against extradition to sweden. he has denied raping one woman and molesting another in stockholm. he has been under house arrest in britain. president obama heading to france for the g-20 summit. two-day at summit will focus on the european debt crime months -- debt crisis. there is a call for referendum on the hard fought debt deal. george papandreou's government

still faces a vote of survival. those are some a bowl latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: gop presidential candidate herman cain was at the american enterprise institute on monday talking about his economic plan,. >> we wanted it to be simple. if the american people understand it, they will demand it. this is not going to be passing based upon my ability to persuade hundreds alone. this will pass because of the strength and the voice of the american people. we wanted it to be simple. secondly, i have been working on tax reform and tax replacement for decades. i was a supporter of the flat

tax on income but i saw it did not have a chance of passage when dick armey was talking about it, forbes ran for president on it. anything to replace the current tax code, i was for. i worked on the tax reform commission that jack kemp added appeared out of that commission came six principles replacement should satisfy. guess what? the national consumption tax, the fairtax, and the flat tax on income they satisfied the six principles. but the 13-person commission was deadlocked on which to recommend because they all had attributes and negatives. as a result, the commission decided to stay the principles and said in the report, which got put into a drawer, by the way, basically said that either one of those would satisfy the

principles. for decades i have looked at both of them. i knew that they both offered some very positive benefits. the people who have supported a flat tax is for a long time feel very strongly about it. the people who supported the fairtax feel very strongly about it. one of the objectives was, let's get both of these groups to the table. host: rich lowrie is senior economic adviser for the herman cain campaign talking about the plane. -- the 9-9-9 plan. guest: restarted with feedback that he got prior to his announcement. he heard that we needed to lower personal income tax rates, the

corporate tax rate, the payroll tax, the capital gains, and that tax on repatriated profits. so that was one thing, and then we looked at the objectives he laid out, which is to say, taxing everything once and nothing twice. i want something that is simple, transparent, efficient, fair, and neutral. if you use those objectives in terms of the border of the puzzle, then you are looking at a flat tax or up their attacks, or in the case of 9-9-9, a hybrid. washington makes a living by dividing people into groups and a lobbyist make money off of both sides. what we do is unite people. we want to unite people want to get rid of iraq -- deductions with those who want lower rates. we want to unite all taxpayers.

there is no reason to have this tug-of-war between half of the country that pays no income tax who look at the other people and say they do not pay tax, but upon closer inspection, they pay a lot of payroll tax. by getting rid of the payroll tax -- after all, a tax is a tax is a tax -- we are able to unite all taxpayers, getting them all on the same side of the rope, pulling for lower rates. those are the objectives that we sought to achieve. host: why the 9% figure? guest: it is what makes the numbers were. we basically said that we wanted to tax the broadest possible base at the lowest possible rate. you could not get larger than this, because as you go through the flow, the circular flow of

101,conomy, econo income is spent on consumption. at each stage, we try to have one tax. we wanted equal between the three tax basis of people do not figure out how that get out of this rate. when we set it up, we said here is our total tax base. then we carved out a large poverty exemption. we talked about 33% of it and there is still more that we will announce. but we're getting rid of the corporate income tax, all payroll taxes, employer and employee, capital gains tax, and the debt tax, then how much revenue do we need to replace? we divided that number by the phase ended in 79%. host: on the poverty exemption, where does the poverty exemption

go to? guest: we had an announcement in detroit. if you go on that in original design from jack kemp, we needed to end the division between capital and labor. they are joined at the head. if you want labor to be more productive and wages to go up, and you need to invest more capital per worker. we tried that attach capital more heavily to labor, and it does not help labored all. so let's get rid of the capital gains tax in the most distressed areas. allow immediate expensing in the most distressed areas. so the announcement in detroit, the whole country is now one large opportunities and, and as such, every family will get an exemption or the poverty level income that relates to their

family size. that uses up only 33 per sign of the total exemption. so 9-9-9 starts at the first dollar above poverty level for each family size. there will be business incentives for hiring, and what president clinton did was to take a lot of the terminology that kemp used but made it one size fits all, mandate-heavy, washington knows best, and ours will be the opposite. you tell us what is holding you back and we will have additional incentives for that. the incentives were basically tax credits, which meant you had had in common order to benefit from it. we want to encourage hiring. our incentives will be applied toward peril. host: when will you make that two-thirds exemption announcement? guest: we will make that

announcement fairly soon on business incentives. we do not have a date yet. the last third we may need to hold on for practical reasons. we need to work with congress to reformulate all these means- tested benefits. this is a fairly important point. when we did our work and opportunity zones, we found that the highest marginal tax rates in all societies are in the inner cities and in the poorest areas, not the affluent suburbs. in order to come to that determination, we treated the reductions of the means-tested benefit the same as the tax. so of your incumbents at a certain level, a single mom with kids trying to work out and follow the herman cain empowerment story, you would pay payroll taxes and thing you get your means-tested benefits

reduced. that has the combined effect of a 70% marginal tax rate. everyone knows that high marginal tax rates punished productive activity. we need to reduce that in the inner city. so we need to reformulate all whole host of means tested benefits. part of the practicality of hanging on to the poverty exemption is that we wanted to work with the new formulation of the means tested benefits. you that basically a linear relationship between work and effort and the war. by now you reach a certain point we detect a poverty trap, and it will stay with you until you increase income by $40,000. unless we cut out of that, we will have trouble helping the most distressed areas. host: let's hear from randy in ohio.

caller: every time i turn on c- span, you are showing someone presenting a regressive tax plan. you are hurting poor people. they should get some of their money back. host: that has been a criticism levied on 9-9-9, that it is regressive. guest: let me what you do this piece by piece. one premise underlying that statement is that progressive rates actually do good. and what a progressive rate structure does is simply mathematically guaranteed that in areas of economic expansion, the tax burden ratchets up on at the american people and revenue in the washington increases faster than personal income. and in the economic downturn, revenues to washington decline

faster than personal income. now you have a boom-bust cycle of revenues. when you are in the boom period, the money gets spent. the next downturn, their revenue stream dries faster. that leads to louder calls for raising taxes. 9-9-9 , we are getting rid of that counterproductive activity. you would not want to fund this with an artificial lake the volatile revenue stream. under 9-9-9, it will grow in line with the economy. those who say the 9-9-9 plan is regressive simply have not looked into it fully. one-third of it will give every family in the country an exemption to the poverty level based on family size. the other two-thirds will be

fully used to give a chance to those at the bottom. we will break out of the poverty trap to not perpetuate people in poverty trying to get of voter base at this. we want them to climb the ladder. the one thing that people do not realize is that built into the price of everything we buy a are all the business taxes. they markup to include all of their taxes. they pass it on to the food processor, who passes it on to the distributor, who passes it on to the retailer, and by the time you buy it in the store, those taxes are in it. so we're pulling up those taxes -- piling up the taxes where they are invisible. it does not matter whether a poor person pays income tax and

not. they pay tax every time they buy something. they just do not know it. the thing stirring things up with the sales tax is not because it is regressive. that does not stand up to scrutiny. more and more people need to know about how government -- how much government cost in being reminded that every time they buy something, they want less government. host: one pundit has said that you should back away from the sales tax because it is a political punching bag. are there cost to doing that? guest: because every person -- for every person that tells us to get rid of that because they want their tax, they is another person that wants to go to a fair tax. we are trying to accomplish a compromise. when you have fairtaxers dug-in

on one side and flat taxers dug in on the other side, our message to both sides is to give little bit in order to get this into place. i do not think there is any dispute that this will create police 6 million jobs. expanding the economy by $3 trillion, push up wages overall by 10%, and his argument is not on the economics. it is more of a political issue. i think that is what we will deal with in terms of having a conversation with the american people. we remind them that there is a difference between the incidence of the tax and the burden of the tax. the incidence is where you aim the tax and the burden is where

it lands. and we know that it lands in our pockets no matter where you aim at. we end up paying the price whether we realize it or not. host: ron, a republican in los angeles. caller: i am retired and i paid the progressive taxes for 60- something years. i am now on a pension from a company which is about $36,000 plus a social security bringing me up to $50,000 a year. i am now to the point where i do not have to pay any income tax. i understand under the 9-9-9 plan, how would pay the 9% national sales tax, plus i would probably be paying 9% on my

pension and social security. that is an 18% increase over where i am at now. guest: first of all, you have an exemption based on the poverty level or your family size. social security will not be taxed at all. so take that $35,000-the poverty level exemption, then the 9% will start on the next dollar above that. and you are paying sales tax is now in the price of everything that you buy, they are just not called sales taxes. they are embedded corporate taxes. as businesses produce goods, they pass that tax burden along from the business to the consumer. you're paying quite a bit more than 9% now. so it will not increase prices but just visibility.

all $1 bottle of water should cost about 90 cents. the new pay your 9% sales tax on that. it will not increase prices. if you look at the overall plan, we're pulling out 40 percentage points of total taxes throughout the economy. we're putting back and 27 percentage points q2 9-9-9. due to 9-9-9. host: on reducing the corporate tax rate to 9%, of former adviser to george h.w. bush, he writes this. 92% of businesses would not benefit because they are not taxed on the corporate schedule. guest: the way this will work is that all businesses will get essentially a treatment.

what mr. bartlett did, and i respect him alive, but when he first looked at the plan -- i respect him a lot, but when he first looked at the plan, his commentary like all the information that he should have had. for example, the corporation will pay the 9% based on how we set this up, gross sales minus purchases. host: any corporation? guest: any business. so when the company determines its profit, which will be a separate calculation, the same as it is today, that will flow through to the personal 9%. so the corporation earns a dollar a share for the business earns a dollar a share, that will be 1099ed to the personal side of the ledger. in effect, we are extending partnership or passing treatment

to the corporations. that is how we're leveling the playing field. right now there is a certain bias on how business is organized. if you remove that, businesses would choose the best form of organization based on the other taxes -- other factors and not the tax code. host: an e-mail. guest: we have not been able to find a trust fund or a lock box. if you did find one, it would be stuffed with iou's. you simply say, we need to generate revenues to pay benefits. right now the way we generate revenues to pay benefits is a tax code that exerts damage on the private sector. " we will do is essentially,

what the way to generate the requisite amount of revenue to pay for everything but do so in a way that in flix the least damage on the economy. -- that inflicts the least damage on the economy. host: john, an independent in portland, ore., you are on the air with a senior economic adviser to the herman cain campaign. caller: a similar question to the previous caller. i have managed to live on social security and a small benefit. i say to of $200,000 that i plan to live on for the rest of my -- i saved $200,000 that i plan to live on for the rest of my life.

i realize you say, the cost of goods will go down but the fact is, the cost of production includes labor. i cannot see us ceo pay 9% tax taking a $2 million cut. that is not the way that it works. business will try as much as it can, whatever the market will bear. guest: market forces will prevent that from happening. if you have a corporation whose ceo it decides to of pocket the full amount of the savings, then when you buy something, if you will see two competing prices, one trying to keep the price the same to capture the profit, higher priced than companies that will adjust their cost structure, and we will enlist the largest, most powerful, most vigilant enforcement agency in the whole country, 300 million

american consumers. my advice would be dead heat uc two competing products and one is trying to pass through the savings and the other is not, do what consumers do, by the lower price. board rooms across the country would get their people together and figure out their new call structure. i grant you that corporations are greedy, but they will figure out how to adjust their call structure so that they do not lose market share. if they are really greedy, they will not want to lose market share. you do that by recalculating your cost under this program to pass this through. there is a debate this is that our prices will fall but our wages are going up. we will not take sides on that because both of those will

benefit people. as far as the $10 million ceo compensation, i direct you back to the bill by president clinton that attempted to cramdown on executive compensation. god forbid you are a corporate ceo and earn over $1 million. we will have an extra tax on you. and that is where the stock options was created to compensate executives. it is a leveraged upside. so if you want to revisit -- and this is a case where the outcome of the best intentions of washington produced the exact opposite of the desire. i will direct you back to that bill. host: a headline for you.

the reporter says they are best suited to lead a nation economic distress. the forum hosted by the national association of manufacturers would be an ideal audience. what was your strategy to skip this event with the republican governor criticizing both mr. kane and mr. romney? guest: i am not familiar with scheduling. there is a process that he goes through to determine that. he was here in washington on tuesday. i really cannot speak to who got the request in first or how that was determined. but for the national association of manufacturers, if you want to know how the 9-9-9 plan works, they are fully aware that we produce here in the u.s. goods

that have the embedded taxes. when we tried import from overseas, we import high-cost goods and mixes more difficult to compete. the only way to get out from those costs is to locate overseas. we know what happens -- jobs followed. under 9-9-9, exports are deductible and they never see the sales tax because they are sold outside of the country. now we can take goods that are manufactured in the u.s., instead of taking 40% of the cost as embedded taxes, it will be at most 9% embedded tax. you can manufacture goods for export around the girl and be on a rigid or export around the world and be on a level playing field. those goods do not -- imported

goods do not have those high embedded taxes, and is it any wonder that imports are making it difficult for domestic manufacturers? under 9-9-9, they will pay the business 9%, they will pay their share of the sales 9%, and they compete with domestic goods. so we we put our exports on a level playing field. we will be a magnet for capital and for manufacturing activity. host: another headline in the paper criticizing herman cain about the sexual harassment allegations. the first paragraph -- host: your thoughts on how the

campaign is handling that. guest: i will stick with the economics. host: what else are you advising herman cain about? guest: the first step is to get the whole country going. we start by making the full country an opportunity zone and we'll go after additional geographic areas. you cannot have a credible program unless some of the around.rogcountry turned we have an energy program. we will have a sound money rollout. three economic guiding principles cover all of our economic policy. production drives the economy,

not spending. you have to produce. everybody has to produce first. then and only then can they get paid and consume. production and consumption look like they're moving at the same rate. make no mistake, you're not going to get anywhere putting fuel in a caboose. everything we do will be geared toward getting production going. the second guiding principle is that risk taking guides growth. you need somebody to take a risk to get one more unit of output. whether that is someone starting in new business, that deals with the regulatory environment which is a big in a better to risk taking. a dollar has to always equal a dollar's worth of value of the senate and our is only 60 minutes and it right anklgle is

always 90 degrees. we need dependable units of measure. we're doing the opposite on all three of these right now. 9-9-9, here is a tweet. do you agree? guest: that maybe his opinion. we have to get away from progressive rates. they create an artificial cycles of revenue. we know what happens if washington gets more revenues than they need. they find ways to spend it. in the next downturn, the use that as an excuse to jack up the tax burden. you need the revenue stream that

will grow in line with the economy, in line with personal income. i would reject the fact that progressive rates do anything helpful. host: a democratic caller from woodbridge, virginia. caller: i will restate my question. i want to know if the plan eliminates all contributions from the employer for the benefit of employees such as workers' comp, medicare, social security contributions. does that mean social security and medicare will be unfunded? guest: it does eliminate the employee and employer side of social security. this will help the funding. those programs now are underfunded. there are serious problems that need to be addressed. this will provide the requisite amount of funding that is scored

independent by experts and will be revenue neutral. it will bring in the same amount of revenue as the current system does. it will not affect the government's ability to fund those programs. it is designed where it will do the least possible amount of damage to the productive side of the economy. the comic is going to grow. 6 million people will go back to work -- the economy is going to grow. taxes on some of the biggest corporations that earn billions and don't pay taxes are likely to go up. as the economy grows, it will throw off more revenues. look at the 9-9-9 and say one not have that be the ceiling? i did not accept the fact that the rates will go up. we will fund the government in a

more productive manner. those in top programs will be dealt with separately. we'll have a solution for health care and social security. host: rainey is a republican in arkansas -- randy. caller: the effect -- government has to collect $2 or $3 in taxes for $1. thank you. guest: well said. this goes back to the first principle. production drives the economy. as soon as you get that backwards, where you think spending dries the economy, that allows people to try to justify redistributing production. no matter how you look at it, if the girl consisted of two farmers -- if the world

consisted of two farmers and you paid benefits to one, who pays for that? it's a production away from one person, which has eight- multiplier -- which has a negative multiplier. it means this person is not going to spend it. it is the equivalent of taking a bucket of water and out of the deep end of the pool, pouring in the shallow end of the pool, and you hope the water level changes. we know that is not the case. what puts in place is incentives for this group that is getting the production taken to change their behavior to try to avoid the extra tax.

as soon as a direct their attention away from expanding output toward reducing taxes, the whole economy suffers as a result. the net effect is a negative on the economy. caller: i am now an independent and i have been a registered republican four years and years in my adult life. i have reached the point and i'm not sure i'm gone to vote for any party this year. senior, 72 i am a years old. i'm living on $5,000 a month, which isn't enough. that means i'm taking it -- i am living on $1,500 a month. i am taking a $200 a month to meet my mortgage payment. the housing market in my area is

so terrible. i want to know -- i am paying over nine%, almost 10% sales tax in nashville, tennessee. i would like to know how adding another 9% sales tax to food or -- i am hardly driving my car. i cannot afford hardly to do anything. i cannot do anything recreational. host: we will get a response. guest: let's go through those in order. the number one way to get the housing market turned what is to get the economy to grow. with this but many people out of work, it puts pressure on people to make their payments and that puts pressure on additional foreclosures. this'll be the best thing we can do to restore some buoyancy in the real estate market. by eliminating the home mortgage

reduction, if that provided much value, it has not shown that it has in this real-estate downturn. economic forces are more important in determining real- estate then a special deduction. that will level the playing field between homeowners and renters. the sales tax is the third thing. we're making these taxes visible. if you buy food, the former increases their costs and pass a that to the food processor who passes it to the distributor and finally the retailer. by the time you buy anything, there are a lot of embedded taxes. you just do not see them. we think is a bit helpful in acting to constrain the size of government. a povertying to be

level exemption for all families. the 9% personal tax when not start until you hit the first dollar above that level. host: a democratic caller from the houston, texas. caller: this is my first call to c-span. i have a quick comment and question. my comment is, mr. lowrie, the title on view is that you are a wealth manager from cleveland. one of the most affluent suburbs in the united states. the people you're dealing with are not the people who are now saying the 99%. my question is as follows. you have left the one piece of

any business's expenses unaccounted for your tax plan. that is the salary of the people. whether you are in the service business or in manufacturing, your highest cost is your people. that is not deductible, it is a leverage point. it will be used to drive down the business's cost in increase profit. host: us their response. -- let's get a response. guest: i do not know what the question is. host: her point about labor cost as the driver. guest: we will neutralize the tax code. our main objective in doing that is to increase wages for all

workers. there is only one way that is lasting to increase wages and that is to increase the amount of capital invested per worker. that tries productivity. it workers' productivity is what drives wages. by taxing capital and labor equally, we are leveling the playing field. as the income slows to the personal side, we're taxing capital and labor equally in the second 9. dividends and interest will be taxed along with interest. the argument does not stand up to scrutiny. the net effect of all we're trying to do is put people back to work and increase wages. you get a big government to crack down with a bunch of regulations to have the opposite effect on things, or you make it easy for people to invest capital in people.

the capital gains tax is something that comes up when the subject comes up. they say it is an unfair advantage and we should tax that the weight tax wages. the capital gains tax is a wall between those with ideas and those with money. why would we want to wall off people with money? that is where we get a job creation. teardown the wall. that is where the next steve jobs is going to come from. host: there has been criticism directed to you. some say you're not an economist. have you been surprised? guest: not really. host: you have been surprised by it? guest: if they want to create a

distraction in talking about the merits of the 9-9-9 plan, my response is i never wore a tweed acket, i don't have a ph.d., and i do not think one is necessary for this job. you need to understand the simple truths of economics and be able to relate to the people rather than washington. if i held a bowling ball over your foot and dropped it, do either one of us need a ph.d. in physics to know what will happen? host: maureen dowd has a column today and the lasting power of hurricaherman cain. guest: unlike other points of the campaign, where somebody has

a rise in the polls, it is not confirmed with positive intensity. for almost every week with the exception of one or two weeks, mr. cain has held the highest court in positive intensity. other candidates with a lead -- the more people got to know the candidate, the more its trail. he has been able to drive up his name i.d. that is a formula for a lasting power. host: you apparently donated to moronic in 2008 -- you donated to mitt romney. ofst: there weren't a lot choices that, in my opinion. i like the factory was a business guy. mr. cain was not in the race that or my choice would have

been different. we both support governor romney. i thought that he brought some things to the table than. but i think there's a clear contrast between the two candidates in terms of what they stand for. a difference in their business experience and their problem- solving. host: rich lowrie, thank you for talking to our viewers. coming up, we'll talk about the latest vision of "ms." magazine. it was launched four years ago. but first a news update from c- span radio. >> the federal reserve is expected to wrap up its meeting today by doing nothing out of the ordinary. analysts think the fed will announce a wait-and-see approach to see if there is a positive economic effect. ben bernanke will hold a news

conference this afternoon and he will be live on c-span radio and at c-span.org. there's some good news on the jobs front. planned layoffs dropped 60% in october from september. that drop does come after planned layoffs hit a 20-month high in september. -- 28-month high. the were far fewer layoffs in october than the previous month. the democratic super pak is targeting mitt romney with a new internet campaign. pierides usa -- priorities usa action is spending $100,000 to run advertising on websites. pakistan says it has decided to normalize trade relations with its longtime rival and neighbor,

india. the information minister says the cabinet approved a decision to give india at the status of most favored nation. that means the country's conduct trade on equal terms. each other will have lower tariffs and high import quotas. those countries have fought three wars since they were created in 1947. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> wish you continued statement, please -- would you continue your statement, please. >> he was the un ambassador for president kennedy, a former governor of illinois, and twice ran as the democratic nominee for president and lost. adlai stevenson will be featured this week on "the contenders." for a preview, go to our special

website for the serious. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us this morning from new york is abigail pogrebin. she wrote an world history of "ms." magazine for "new york" magazine. abigail pogrebin, or magazines like before the launch of "ms."? guest: basically they were run by men. women's magazines had mostly stories about cosmetics and how to get a good man and keep him. all but about hair, a french ship. nothing substantive for women --

friendship. there are many anecdotes in the magazine for women who were reporters at the time trying to get serious stories on and there were tall, we did all the women's lib story this year. there was a quota of one. you couldn't get them in those magazines. host: when did that change? guest: the first issue of "ms." was in 1971. that is an interesting story. gloria steinem could not get funding on her own. before "ms.," there was a sit-in at "ladies' home journal." been made 10 demands -- they

need 10 demands. they realize these women's magazines or run by men and they do not have a woman's sensibility. i think hearing cosmetics stores are fine, but they should be a long will reporting. so this was a landmark event and a precursor to the activism that "ms." represented. host: what happened next? whose idea was it to launch "new york" magazine? guest: gloria have this idea. there was a widespread of simmering frustration. host: gloria steinem. guest: yes. they said we cannot get these stories done. we're not in positions of power at these magazines.

she had these meetings their apartment along with a lawyer that was very involved in women's issues. they had a number of meetings. women were editors and writers and activists. they said, let's talk about what it women's magazines would look like. there really were kind of -- this happened and gloria's living room. they decided the appetite was there and try to raise money but they could not. host: what was the goal? guest: that is a good question. they wanted to hear what women were thinking about but also see what it is like when women run the show. there were leadership gifts that were not able to be realized

because the was not just a glass ceiling. the ceiling was cement at that time. this was an unequal world. i am 46 years old. i don't remember how bad it was and how strict the parameters were for women at that time. so i think gloria steinem and dealers in the room were saying it was enough already. we have to start telling the truth about what women are experiencing in maine society and in every area, whether it's legal rights or the social milieu or the dynamics in the home. it was kind of blowing the lid off the truth of women at the time. host: we're going to divide the alliance by women and men. women dial into the 202-737- 0001. men, dial into 202-737-0002.

do your best quotations from gloria's living room for my memo that has not been made public before. guest: i went up to smith college or all the "ms." archives are. it is a wonderful treasure trove. there are boxes and boxes -- mother was one of the founding editors. she kept amazing records. gloria steinem has wreckers. nothing was on the computer then. no e-mail -- gloria steinem has records. the confidential memo was there. there was a book called "inside ms." i don't know if it has been widely published before. the confidential memo had all

these story ideas that were telling from as early meetings. host: always the debate like -- what was the debate like? guest: to have the reach and the impact, it had to be a beautiful magazine. this is a glossy magazine. this was a slick magazine. it had to look good. there had to be photographs and good quality paper. they did not want only feminist or only people on the track of consciousness raising were getting newsletters. they wanted to reach people in kansas, california, and in the south. there was lot of debate about

that. to was a sense that the package the matter. you can say it was almost anti feminists. but the packaging mattered. it had to be a sexy package to get people to open up. host: how did they decide on the name? guest: many of the titles that were discussed including sister courses terms, which some thought in my be in magazine a about nuns. ideas.er was one of the they started with ms. because it was already in the secretary can book and some baucus said this is not tell somebody whether you're married or not and your marital status should not be relevant to your introduction. for mr., nobody knows if you're married or not.

host: how did they get funding for the magazine? guest: the funding was quite a saga. it was a tough road. the reaction to the first issue of "ms." was explosive. it sold out in eight days. 300,000 copies. they knew the appetite was there. the needed advertising -- they needed advertising. there were uncomfortable with a lot of the content, whether it was a piece about lesbians or rape or childbirth. this was a hard sell for advertisers at the time. they ultimately got $1 million from time warner communications

and that was pretty much the only real chunk of money "ms." ever got. 40 years later, they're still alive. the appetite was there. host: did it take a man to get this launched? guest: it did. clay was the editor of "ms." magazine at the time. he had hired gloria to write, so he knew her and he knew her work. he was a huge admirer of her. so he said he would help her do the magazine. the's put an excerpt of first issue in the pages." sure enough, that is what they did. the devoted the year-end issue to the first issue of "ms."

it was clay who gave gloria steinem the push and the platform. host: how did your mother and the other ladies feel about having to get a man's help to launch this? caller: -- guest: they were not sure there would have a second issue. these are real believers. there was no precedent for this and a sense that it could work. gloria steinem talked about that it was real and she did not want it to fail because she felt it would have a symbolic failure for the woman's movement. there was a lot riding on this issue. into thepacked a ton first issue. this is something everyone should read because there are amazing articles.

once it did take off, but it was just a huge sigh of relief and an affirmation that women all of the country and over the world needed to hear these stories and to hear these voices. host: you said this sold in eight days all printer thousand copies. but there were critics. what did they say -- -- 300,000. guest: harry reasoner was a news anchor and said, i will give it six months. richard nixon was on tape kind of bemoaning the whole ms. thing. like what a pain in the butt to use that moniker. a columnist was withering in his criticism. there was plenty of criticism.

gloria steinem was a celebrity at the time. a lot of people said it would not have happened without her glamour. she happens to be brilliant. i do not say that lightly. she was always a real journalist. it was a hard magazine to undermine. the critics tried. host: let's get to phone calls. kim in virginia. caller: i picked up my first copy of "ms." at 16. i remember my mother at the time, how sexual-harassment was rampant. in the man's world, it was kept quiet. those were things that they did to women that made women not want to work and go back to the home. the tactics were suppressed in a

woman's mind. we had a right to a voice. they wanted us to put us in a small box, but the box had to become bigger and bigger and finally we said, we will speak out ourselves. my first copy it was a representation that we would not take it. we'll have our voice. we'll have our future. we are still working on it. host: "ms. do ms. thinkd history -- do you "ms." changed history? caller: yes. we put the magazine out for a voice. there was incest, a lot of stuff that was not talked about. host: what do you make of her

comments? guest: she is represent what i heard in reporting this world history. all the secrets that were revealed the were suddenly given face and breath. so many women felt like there were living alone with these issues, whether was harassment, incest, domestic violence. nobody was talking about that and we're all used to that now. it was on "oprah." i think women felt isolated in their struggles before "ms." "ms." put them on the glossy pages. it was a liberating thing for women. host: tom in arkansas.

caller: because of the economy, i was just laid off. i took retirement so did not mind it too much. i was the senior superintendent and i saw women coming into that industry aggressively. i have to make the comment that every woman that i personally worked around, whether they were coming in and out of college, what ever, were very aggressive at that job and very helpful and i enjoyed working with them. i think we need to become more of a mind in this country that you should be hired by what you are worth, your abilities, your skills, and not your gender. host: your mother is quoted in this piece saying, "our twin daughters are not into women's

liberation." what did she mean? guest: i have a twin sister. her first piece in the original "ms." was about nonsexist child rearing and a wake-up call to the fact that even she was giving things to my brother -- balls to my brother and dolls to me instead of saying, let's see what interests them. that was her wake up call. people were being shipped from the moment they were being born. she wrote about her awaken with us. -- i her own mother ring

approach this piece as a mother. i feel that i'm a feminist in a way that everyone i'm with these days in terms of french ships and my kids schools, my iendships.- french shii i never had to fight the battles that my mother did. my sister and i are not activist. we did not choose that path. we did not feel the same anger. there are still some women that are still angry. it is not in my blood the same way. i was raised to feel like everything is possible and i'm raising my daughter with the same sense of possibility. host: we have a tweet.

montana, you're on the air. caller: to why so much. i love "book tv." -- thank you so much. it is about the ability to of a business, a birth certificate with my name on it. to be able to go outside and drive. i own property. i can support my daughter. we can vote. the arabs spring is coming. i'm so grateful to "ms." i would like to see us support our sisters in arab. we can have abortions. when i was 47 years old, i had six children i was unable to

take care of and i got pregnant again. i was not able to have another child. i was on birth control. it is so important that we support our arab sisters in the arabs break so they can stand up to have a right -- host: abortions was an issue talked about in the first issue of "new york" magazine. guest: it was a petition and 53 women signed it about that they have had an abortion. kind of a true admission of having an abortion. some like nora ephron signed in solidarity. billie jean king's signed it. there are some major names that

said this cannot be taboo anymore. sometimes women have to make a difficult choice for a very real reasons in their life. there was a card you could send them that was getting their name to this petition. you can imagine that was very controversial and the first time that i think anything like this had been seen in a major magazine. host: akron, ohio. caller: after four years -- after four years, i grew up after coming out of the war and rose to the river -- rosie the riveter. 75 cents to the dollar, the woman makes against men.

abortion should only be talked about by women. period. guest: that is an interesting question. i do think it affects men's lives, too. their voices can be important in that discussion. as far as how men and women are paid, i assume he was saying men are paid more because in the workplace, that is the case. i don't have the statistics at my fingertips. but the disparity still exists. host: we have an e-mail for you. guest: it is a great idea. a major frustration is that i cannot access old "ms."

magazines. i think there is an effort to do would. it would be a huge effort. it only comes out four times a year. it used to be a monthly magazine. "the new york times" has done it. it would be a treasure trove. these are real artifacts that a think are invaluable. it is a great idea. host: barber in massachusetts. -- barbara. caller: i want to point out how far we have come in terms of women like hillary clinton and on july merkel -- angela merkel being front and center on the stage.

i was thinking about the fact we are making a transition from nation states to globalization. we'll know we're in the bureau of globalization and we're having a hard time switch identities. i think that is something that women are still clear about. we're all in this world together. i encourage readers of "ms." to do some focusing to transition to global citizen and see where that will go. host: how old were you when you first started getting "ms." magazine? i was born in 1947. my math is not that good. it was so exciting to see that cover. buddhism is about interconnection and the world is all interconnected now and it is time we get clear on how that will work that way.

i didn't get married until my 30's. i was a working girl. i worked at the library of congress. i guess we did not -- i don't remember any conversation about that. it was just so cool and having it called "ms." was just perfect. it needs to be digitized. host: there was debate over what to put on the cover. guest: there was a big fight between gloria steinem and the editor because clay wanted a photograph that was much more "new york" magazine-like. a husband and wife tied back to back as if they were tied to a pole.

the resident article -- there was an article about marriage law. and gloria steinem wanted inartistic cover the was much more visually artistic and arrested in that way. the woman represents everything women were charlie at the time. -- the woman represents everything that women were juggling at the time. we're still juggling all those things in 2011. the woman was blue intentionally because they did not want to choose a specific race so no one would feel excluded. in the debate, gloria won the day. host: what about the rules for putting pictures of real-life

women on the cover? guest: "ms." did what most magazines were not doing and all and as to put real, untouched faces on the cover. chisolm, ug, helen schis alice walker. this may not seem a ground- breaking to date but it was then. host: what about race? guest: that is an issue that comes up in the story. putting an african american woman on the cover was not going to sell as many magazines -- that was the data at the time, whether you're offended by that date or not.

they made a judgment about whether they could. the black woman working at the magazine were frustrated. feelimes they didn't african-american voices were not represented as evenly and balanced as they should in "new york" magazine. in terms of the public face of it, that was the perception, and that was offensive, understandably to many african- american women and writers. host: we have another tweet. connecticut, tom, your next. -- you are next. caller: where does "ms." magazine stand on opposing pornography and smut?

my perception is that it used to oppose its strongly. some people used to be opposed to pornography. probably isimates, 40% of content on the internet. guest: you know your history. there was a cover which was the most explosive cover inside "ms.," the most debate internally about this issue. woman's pornography is another woman's eroticism. this was unbelievable sensitive. some felt it was untenable to condone or allow pornography to be considered part of the vocabulary of eroticism.

for others, they felt the product proclivities -- their preferences should not necessarily be ruled out just because one woman might be offended by it. that debate was yeasty, let's say. we were not able to go into how incredible the intense that debate became. "ms." had a line or opinion that they espouse down the line. generally they were against violence against women, and anything that smacked of that was untenable. in terms of where part for is today, i've not seen a recent issue of "ms." where they of

handle pornography, but it was a major issue in the early years. host: we have another question honor twitter page -- on our twitter page. guest: "ms. ms. today is very interested in global issues for women. i would say it is a major focus of the magazine now. i would go online and see the pieces they of done. robin morgan is still the global editor today. that is very much her purview. caller: hello. my name is don. i'm sitting here looking at and she isen's book,

saying that gloria steinem was a con artist. the early feminist were not attractive women. so she got thrust into the format and into the publicity. but was never that it engaged in the movement. she was also one of the first advocates predict public advocates of same-sex marriage. believe it was in a "timte" magazine where she says that lesbians and homosexuals should no longer be denied legally binding marriages. it goes on further to say that the goals of the radical lesbian movement which is taken over the movement by the time of the 1970 was also an editor

under gloria steinem. "the news will have to attack goes on." there is lynch's book back in the 1980's. host: let's take your point. guest: i would disabuse him of any idea that gloria steinem was merely a figurehead of the movement. that is an egregious statement. there's no one who work or tirelessly. i sat as a journalist. -- i say that as a journalist. she is work without sleep for all these decades on behalf of women.

there was nothing just symbolic about her work. i think her life took a back seat to the work that she did. it was work that was heard and seen because it came out of the mouth of somebody beautiful. that helped. gore would concede that -- gloria would concede that. we like to look at somebody that is attractive. that does not mean that someone does not have a substance, which we've seen with sarah palin. if the substance turns out to be flimsy and some light does not sustain in terms of influence. gloria's substance sustained. let's put that aside. host: you do right in the book about how the women debated at leninism -- lesbianism and

feminism. guest: there were important lesbian and feminine voices that were equally important in terms of getting ahead after being shut out. there was a lot of attention paid to help lesbian voices would be included. this magazine was going to be dismissed as women's libbers were dismissed. i think that these original editors did not want to play in to any kind of stereotype so that it could be easily dismissible. they wanted to include lesbian voices but not solely have a. a lesbian piscina, if that makes sense -- a lesbian persona. they also needed to say, these are not just lesbians.

these are feminists who are trying to have careers and lives that are broader than they have been. these other women you know. these are women in their kitchens wherever they are toiling away in the country. this is not just kind of angry feminists, but many, hundreds and thousands of women who are dealing -- who have been oppressed in this country. host: chicago, linda. good morning. caller: yeah, hi. this kind of -- i was a single mother and i have to work. my husband was not paying his child-support. i was on the bus one day going home and i heard someone must have made a comment to amend the

was sitting down and said, you women want to be equal, you can stand, too. host: let's talk about that. guest: there was a backlash. they say, why doesn't the sky opened the door for me anymore -- why does this guy open the door for me anymore? if the means they can get their own credit card and they can't run a business. those to meet some like small concessions, if they are concessions at all. caller: i agree with the person who said abortion should shortly be a women's issue. they should be the only ones with a voice. i have felt the way for the past 25 years. men in this country have done a

poor job of supporting their children. i agree is not all meant that to not support their children in cases of divorce and whatever the situation is. there are so many that do not. the rest of society is having to support. i feel like men shot have a voice -- i feel like men should not have a voice in the abortion issue. guest: i will say that we raises is an interesting point. one of the feminist arguments is that the men who are objecting to the pro-choice position, then do not want to take care of the children that they want make sure get born. "ms." has covered that in the idea -- has covered that idea.

referring to the debate the bombing h. guest: i do not think they wanted to leave them out. they wanted those voices heard in a significant way. they knew how easily dismissed feminists were. -away was, "you're a lesbian." gloria steinem was asked, "are you a lesbian?" she said, "not yet." host: another tweet.

what is the legacy of "ms." magazine? guest: you see many more women on capitol and many more women in board rooms and many more women running magazines and running everything. it is a real legacy. is it a balanced world? no way. but to say we of, a long way baby -- but to say we have come a long way, baby. host: you mentioned dino gloria steinem. you did research for this -- you mentioned you know gloria steinem. one might surprise people about her? guest: one thing is that she loves mily way