with congressman jim jordan about house republican plans for job creation. the ohio congressman heads up of the republican study committee in -- committee. joined by census director robert groves to discuss the changing demographics and the u.s. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning. it is friday, november 4, 2011. one year and two days out from election day 2012. newspapers are dominated by the stories in europe this morning, about the situation with the euro crisis, particularly with greece. the referendum there dropped but concerns over the stability of the european union and the euro itself. we are going to ask you this

morning about the united states and its role as a financial superpower and whether not the u.s. still has the interest and the ability to be an economic leader in crises such as the europeans are facing right now. do you see our role changing, and the ones winning? tell us about it. good friday morning. we are here just two hours this morning because the house of representatives will be starting. a quick look at some of the headline out of your bank. with the g-20 summit and their summit meeting really overshadowed by the situation in greece. let us look at some of the front pages i have, including the front of "the globe and mail" in canada. a year at home, in pittsburg --

"the guardian" out of england has this headline. you will see that many of the papers chose to feature the photographs of the leaders of france, sarkozy, a angela merkel of germany, and u.s. president barack obama. as we look at that, i would like to set the stage for the question this morning, which is -- the u.s. ability and interest in being an economic leader involving itself in global economic crises. here is the front page story in "the washington times" this morning that gets to the heart of this. this is a "washington times"

story, written from cannes, where the g-20 is meeting. a similar headline, and then we will get to your calls, tweets, an e-mails.

that is some background for our question about the u.s. leverage in an economic crisis, and whether not, contest --

considering our situation, what role do you want before the united states and issues in those countries and their possible effect on us. before we get to your calls, let me introduce you by phone, a writer for "the financial times" has been covering some of the situation with the euro. as we start our conversation with our viewers, tell us a little bit about your view of the u.s. role? guest: it certainly seems like for better and for worse, the united states is not really kind of the key player here at the eurozone -- i am sorry, at the g-20 meeting. a couple of reasons. the crisis is centered in europe right now. a couple of years ago we were talking about the fall of lehman

brothers, the u.s. was sort of the locus of the financial crisis. now of course we are talking about europe, greece. the u.s. is not really being looked at as the solution here, either. the europeans have been talking very much to china, brazil, and developing nations, the ones with the excess money at this point, and there have been active the suns -- discussions between france and china in contributing to the european bailout, barring european debt. in the u.s. is really taking on the role of kind of advisor, a middleman in the situation. i think those in the u.s. camp are not necessarily upset at that. they are glad to play that role

instead of being the the focus of attention. host: jay carney at the white house said the 2000 wall street crisis could provide insight on the steps europeans should take -- the 2008 wall street crisis. guest: certainly people look back at 2008 and 2009 and see the u.s. of dramatic steps. of course, some people think it should have done more. whereas, europe did not ask its banks to do that much in the wake of the crisis. they felt they had come out of the relatively unscathed. what happened was europe had been able to take advantage of what the u.s. was doing had the leverage, break up some of the , shuffles some of assets

into other vehicles and stuff like that. now, a couple of years later, when basically it was governments that lends to banks, backstop the banks, now the governments are the ones in trouble. it is where it europe is coming into crisis, the government's that are really the problem. they looked at what happened in the u.s. and they said, boy, if we build better but the banks at the time maybe we would not be in this situation with sovereign debt. >> last question. and quickly, so we can get to our callers, which is the president's view that europe presents a big economic headwind for the united states. how much could possibly the situation in europe affected the u.s. economy? >> i think it represents a drag on constance. the president feels the economy in the u.s. is not really so

terrible when you look at the fundamentals, but that people are afraid to invest, banks are afraid to lend. worries that some events in europe could basically -- pulling apart while the u.s. is trying to recover. host: thank you for talking to us, about the u.s. possibility to have an influencing or tempore enroll in the resolution. let me show you some of his paper's reporting on this. there is a whole special section in "the financial times" on what they call eurozone turmoil. this story is about whether or not greece may leave the bureau. above it, the nation's european destiny hangs in the balance. a question whether the fault can be avoided is one no referendum is able to answer.

in addition to all of the coverage of greece, at the bottom -- pressure on berlusconi over the increasing pressures on the italian economy as well. but as the to your calls and comments. manhattan. robb is a democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i feel that unless we get our own house and order, just like an individual house has to get its finances in order, you are not considered a good credit risk, you cannot really assert yourself. everything we are doing, this in fighting in congress, is just, it is not take steps back but 100 steps back. the asian tiger countries are fighting an economic war with us. china is just eating our lunch. for example, with solyndra, which i am a stand some

republican is going to make a campaign ad against obama for solyndra. i think the way china dumps solar panels and the government supports that industry through all kinds of basically a legal trade techniques, we should have supported solyndra. we should of kept going to solyndra and gotten it out of bankruptcy. we should have given consumer incentives to buy their products. host: let us go back to the initial topic, the united states and its ability to influence. generally, are you happy with the more diminished role of the u.s. on the global stage or is there a regret the u.s. cannot play that role as much as it has in the past? caller: no regrets here. we are expanded militarily but under-expended economically. china is eating our lunch.

today are in africa, they are getting natural resources, developing businesses, and they are not in the fighting about republican, democrat, abortion nonsense. they are out there to make money and to give businesses to run strong. host: thank you for your call. next is chapel hill, north carolina. any attack, republican vin caller: thank you, c-span then i agree with the previous caller with a lot of his issues and points. americans need to have confidence in where we have come and what we are and where we are going to be later. i have great confidence in us. i think we are a great nation. i believe despite all of the disputes, i think we are all trying to take care of our families and the right way. i think the world has a lot to

learn from us being we are in your country. i think we have provided a great example for diversity and having a good family and particularly sending women to school here and allowing them to have families also. i think we have done a lot, more show than any other nation. now, that is my personal opinion. but i think as far as of having a global effect economically later, i think president obama listens to a lot of our foreign allies which may not necessarily make a better decision for us, and i feel that we should stay out of the middle east conflict because the children of abraham, the jewish people and arab people, they have conflicts of blood. this is not something we need to be concerned about because we are just not in that blood family, either. host: getting into other issues here. dennis tweets this.

more from "the new york times" story. they write -- telephone call comes from greenbelt, maryland. caller: i believe america is a financial superpower and unfortunately there is a lot of the media effort to make america. it is not. but i agree with the previous caller that there are a lot a prom -- prop. -- positives that are not exercised. it spreading bad news, that is what the media believes cells. the fact that we are not a

financial media is more indicative of the fact that our political leadership -- and that goes for republicans and democrats, are spending more time being divisive van asserting leadership. that inhibits our ability to exercise the leadership which we are cable. that to me is the overall problem. host: thank you for your call. chris is a republican from new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to talk about the european debt crisis, and the american debt crisis, too. a lot of people ask themselves where this money come from, how does it create? it is overlooked. global financial institutions -- world bank, imf, federal reserve, and it all up for the operate under fiat currency and there is essentially a handful of people that create the money, that say how much money is in

supply. for super duty with supercomputers and algorithms, you can basically engineer and economy. every european country basically over each other money through debt. how is this supposed to happen? once one country starts default you will get a snowball effect. abubble global economy is a ponzi scheme with the central bank in the ponzi, making money on interest. how is this supposed to end? it will not get better. it is an unhealthy thing, especially when most of our growth comes from people being sick and the military. we are basically telling people to grow our economy. how is this supposed to happen? host: on twitter, liz smith also brings up the question of the

u.n. does military from a different tack. here is a piece to get the that gets to this whole issue -- piece that gets to the whole issue.

that is this morning in "the washington post." lancaster, pennsylvania. john is an independent there. caller: the united states combines a lot with london to basically eliminate government. and it is now the financial institutions in charge. the rule would government, and so they will the world. finance used to be responsible for about 10% of the economy and now it is up into the 30's. it has thrown everything off a bank. i agree with people who say the united states should take response will for the villainy, and the last caller was talking about central banks -- i would

not call in a ponzi scheme, but it wrecked the world. you look at the economy's doing well, it is those who have not been affected by the united states -- canada, china, other southeast asian places. so, the united states, they should back out for somebody who knows what they are doing and does not want to rob of the world. host: let's listen to a little bit of the president's from cannes and the g-20 summit. >> it is no surprise we spent most of our conversation focused on strengthening the global economic recovery so that we are creating jobs were our people and stabilizing the financial markets throughout the world. the most important aspect of our task in the next two days is to resolve the financial crisis here in europe. we also discussed the situation in greece and how we can work to help resolve the situation as well. the united states will continue to be a partner with the

europeans to resolve these challenges. host: notes that the president said the u.s. would be a partner. did not use the word leader describing the united states role. "usa today" talked-about g-20 leaders working on the debt crisis. that is richard wolf writing in "usa today." next up is gainesville, florida.

caller: i agree with the last couple of callers. but idea of stabilizing the economy by putting money into what is a fallacy. we are four or five years later and would continue to see things falling. you have the federal reserve continuing to land at almost 0% to people like goldman sachs and the other four that crashed the world economy. the reason is, is they continue to hold the debt greece had. anybody who thought greece, we would allow them to claim bankruptcy, is living in la la land. as long as we continue to allow these financial people to pretend it is not theirs and to show that off on us and other smaller countries, or states, rather, we will be in the same place as in 2007 until we finally stop pretending we can

stop this. since that of allowing it to just hit bottom and move forward. as far as a question as to whether and of the united states should be a "economic leader." we have proven that we cannot do that because we continue to pretend that we can pretend that the debt is not there when it is truly there. host: bill from twitter writes-- "the washington post" has this perspective. writing from born as iris -- when most iras -- buenos aires.

next up is a call from that to rouge, louisiana -- baton rouge. caller: when i was a boy, an outlay used to say, the hand cannot hit what i can't see. i float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. we do not know who these people are who print the money. we do not know if they are part of the republic, the european banking system, and they just keep printing money and we can identify them. our constitution says congress is supposed to have the authority to print and regulate our currency. they did that for a reason, so we can identify who prints the money, who regulates it, and

then we can vote them in or out if they did not do what the people will. that is the problem. we don't know who these people are. they are not regulated in any way, not held accountable by anybody. i am not sure we are supposed to be a leader of the world. we need to leave their own country and stop worrying about leading the world. if we don't leave our own country and eventually we will fall into so much dead that someone will start calling the shots for on republican we will not be a leader. host: thank you for your call. next telephone call is from orlando. mike is an independent there. caller: good morning. thank you for the phone call. i agree with the previous callers, but i wanted to help you understand that we are billed on a pyramid system. this is the way the government runs. we are all part of it. we all want money. part of it is -- some people end

up on top and some on the bottom head the u.s. -- on the bottom. capitalism usually goes 250 years generally. we are almost at the end of the road. i think it was a good run for the u.s. the future as that will be a global economy. people saying i hate china. it does not matter any more. we are all used to the other. if we lose, we cannot pump the money just in the u.s. it is not realistic. it will be reliance on other countries and working together to try to make things happen. people also have to realize it is a population and a resource issue, a much bigger issue than we have seen in the future. we have seen a lot of jobs not be -- not being made. look of the population. where are we going to put these people? these guys are over there, take them out. where will we put them when they come back? education. master's degree is a new

bachelor's. where are we going to put the kids when they come out of school? phd will be next. there is a big population issue in addressing the economic power of the u.s. being at the forefront. i think it is going to be a global economy, all going to one nation, i think, $1. i know it sounds i've -- odd. host: here is covered from "the washington post" today. those are all the big stories from yesterday. but right below it, they talk about the g-20 confronting its own limits as it weighs its options.

that is what we are talking about this morning with you, about the u.s. role as an economic leader, whether or not it has waned and what influence it has with the economic situation unfolding in europe, as one example. emporia, kansas. phil is a republican. caller: how are you today? it is hard for most of us -- like the third line tranche and we feel powerless. what social needs in -- i see and the store fronts. i hear our local politicians working on projects and find out there are overruns that will cost us more money. then i hear the news on the world stage, and my wife and i had the board -- good fortune of

being in greece several years ago and i saw then that there was a problem. the greeks all wanted to retire at 50, they wanted to work a 30- hour week. i am thinking, wait a minute, it is sort of like walking around new york city when i lived there back in the 1980's. i walked by the panhandlers industry and i wanted to be compassionate, and i would also -- often been the money, and then i say -- think, wait a minute, get a job. it just leave me alone. i think that is the way most of the american public feels now days. the issue is going to drop and somebody is going to expect something from us and we will get a lecture about how we miss managed our affairs and now it is your turn to bail us out. i am not sure we feel so inclined to do that. that we want to tell the rest of the world -- look, i've got my own problems. use of yours, just leave me alone. i think that is the basic american feeling.

whether it is right or wrong, i don't know. but i feel very tapped out and i did not feel any great obligation to bail out europe. host: some more stories from the papers today. europe has a new central bank head. he made a move yesterday to cut the interest rates. this story describes it in the business section of "the new york times." and in their editorial page, kudos for that. from our viewers, an e-mail, and from dw in seattle.

that's a phone calls. next up is phoenix. stephen is a republican. at caller: i was wondering, simple thing we can do to make our economy better. you ever pull up to a stop light, and they will have -- one car will pull up and stop like about 100 cars and i am thinking of this is happening across the united the states every minute, we are losing a million gallons of gas every minute. i think we can do little fixes like that to help our economy. i think we are still a leader but if we did not start doing

stuff like this -- i tried to contact people in charge of that and they do not seem to want to listen. and i have a reason or whatever. we have the technology to fix that. host: let's talk about what is coming up later. our next guest at 7:45 a.m. is congressman jim jordan of ohio, chairman of the republican study committee which just recently announced a program for u.s. jobs creation. we will talk to them about that and about the debt and deficit super committee and about the overall view of this economy. our final guest is the head of the census bureau, as we continue our final look at u.s. by the numbers. focusing on changes in american households and how households have changed in the years since the 2008 financial crisis. other stories in the newspapers as we listen to your calls. "60 minutes" takes on boehner and pelosi.

north carolina. greg is an independent. caller: yes, sir -- yes, ma'am. i say we are getting to the point where money will eventually be above the law. stupid legislation like the "in god we trust" thing that was wasting a lot of time, we did not have time for that. the key issue is jobs. division of motor vehicles. what did they do? they did not do anything except impede the progress of basically honest citizens. fire dmv, the patriot act,

national state registry. we have to focus on the economy and stop trying to be the world's jailer. host: thank you. back to twitter. let's look at some other morning papers today. "the washington times" -- right below it, again, one year

and two days out from election days. -- election day. and a similar story and "usa today" today. they look at a dozen key battleground states in the 2012 election that say they are in a deeper funk about their lives, obama, and the nation's politics. we are asking about the united states's role as an economic leader as the g-20 summit deals with the european crisis as well as growth and jobs creation. michigan, a caller named ed. independent. caller: my comment is basically, until the voters get educated about the proper role of government, they did not belong in our financial system. the u.s. has a role as an economic leader, but that is only just a spread the ideas of

our free system. the economic problems that you have now are just going to continue until the voters get educated about the proper role of government. and they did not belong in our financial system and they should basically just protect our rights, monitor the courts, and provide basic services and stay out of the financial industry. host: thanks. from twitter, first primary is the twitter handle. next telephone call. ohio. jim is a republican member. good morning. you are on the air. caller: i a wondering, i have not heard anybody say in congress talk about solyndra, just taking it over, putting people back to work. if we have to, they may have to

take a little pay cut or something like that. but texas of those solar panels and put them on government buildings -- take all of those solar panels. that would have jobs for the next 30 or four years. the same with the solar panel company to the massachusetts the president gave a lot of money to. understanding want to move that to china to make more profit. we have to stop this kind of thing, outsourcing jobs. host: thank you. from all right. this story and "the wall street journal," -- you heard about the rift between it governor romney perry. . harr

talking with you about the u.s. role in the economy and whether or not this country still is an economic leader and our house. plantation, florida. tom, republican. caller: good morning. obviously the united states is not the economic leader in the world today. it is china and the economies of brazil and india. host: are you comfortable with that? caller: it concerns me, and what is really frustrating is the solution has been voiced loud and clear by corporate america, and that the solution is to revisit some symbols -- simpson- bowles, the good things people could not agree on, and pass it. i think the american public thinks there is such a mysterious thing going on where there is no answer.

there is an answer. president obama appointed the commission, and they made the report, and as a failure of leadership -- i am sorry, it is true, president obama did not own it. all it, mr. president. and be a leader. work out the differences -- that the committee -- not the majority, but the number of votes needed to get it in legislation, and just do it. there is no mystery. we would be swimming in jobs today if they would just do that one thing. please, please, leadership, anybody listening, let's do this, ok? there is no mystery. corporate america has clearly said that is the answer. please, do it. host:, from plantation, florida. another story in "the wall street journal" on the foreign- policy front. a piece written --

next step telephone call is from california. good morning to david, independent. what is your comment, please? >> , my comments, thinking back to 1997 when california was the third largest economy in the world, and now we are ranked

25th. there are a couple of elements and i watch it every morning and listen to what is going on in congress and senate. this land comprises of america, it is as large as europe. europe as individual countries that trade among themselves, as well as california is a red state, and florida, locked out -- the most economically hit, where there were elements of manufacturing, i just think it's terrible what the unfair trade going on and the loss of jobs we have. our self-sufficiency making what we by and by what we make has disappeared. i think if we focus on the united states, each state as an element, where each state can make things, grow things, and we can trade among ourselves and rebuild the jobs base and rebuild the economy, and the government needs to understand

-- the corporations, the high tax rate on their employee, the employee tax rate they charge, we need to get it down to 20% and that would help the corporations where they could be somewhat profitable and then employ people and pay them a great waves. what then we could get back on our feet and satisfy both sides. host: thank you for your call. in about five minutes, congressman jim jordan will be here with a conservative republican view from the republican study group on how to create jobs in this country. one big i want to tell you about. it is friday night, and it means 8:00 p.m. eastern time, our historic the series about presidential campaigns of your. tonight's focus on "in the contenders" is at ally stevenson. we will be live from his home in illinois. the period of time in the 50's,

what the economy was like and what his thought were and how it affects the united states today. one of the 14 people who ran for president and lost but influenced american society, featured in our special series called "of the contenders." next telephone call is from albany, georgia. caller: how are you doing this morning? host: stock for a second. hit the mute button, please. caller: listen, what i wanted to say was, i am not here to point fingers this morning. do you know that we can create so many jobs if we've revert back to the loss of eight that began our great surge toward economic supremacy in the world. america was and always has been a proper gaidar of innovation. we can create jobs. we can create over 20 million jobs right now. jobs that would have an impact

on the environment, jobs that would have an impact on the things that we need to do to keep people working. and to put america back in its place as the top economic leader in the world. i am not here to point fingers this morning. all i would like for people to know is that if we put our minds and direct our resources and the right place, we can create jobs. there is no doubt in my mind. there are jobs that are just out there waiting to be created. and with this jobs bill, if we could get that going, i know we could do things that would have an impact -- in host: that is our right. thank you for being part of our conversation. as we close out, a bit of news. a former new jersey governor and

former u.s. senator john corzine -- jon corzine, who was ceo of an as global -- mf global, he has just resigned. we will take a break. it ahead of the census department will be here to talk about the changing landscape of the american families and who lives and household, especially after the recession. and in a couple of minutes, congressman jim jordan. >> would you continue your statement, please. you would receive your answer in due course. >> i am prepared to wait for my answer until freezes overh freezesell -- hell freezes governor. >> former governor of illinois and twice ran for president and lost. adlai stevenson is featured this

week on "the contenders." from the stevenson family home in illinois. live at 8:00 eastern. for more, go to our special website for the series, c- span.org/thecontenders. >> i think obviously reading the right books is usually helpful, but reading the wrong book can be an education as well. like seeing a bad movie. good to see what is done wrong so you can avoid those faults yourself. >> stacy schiff won a pulitzer prize and spent time with simon and schuster. >> publishers out there are desperate for a new book to publish and an exciting new offered to publish. there should be an norma's hope for what is yet to be done. >> more with schiff sunday night on "q&a." >> this is the formal part,

filling out the declaration of candidacy, which has been completed, except for your signature. >> all the need is a signature. i can do that. >> this is the filing fade. -- fee. >> we did this every four years. >> you got a great secretary of state. you've done great job. we appreciate your leadership and we will make sure new hampshire remains in first in the nation. it is a responsibility and honor, which in new hampshire ridgely deserves, and i am happy to be part of this process and to put my name of this paper, hoping this time it will take. and i will be able to be the nominee of my party and hopefully the next president. >> the new hampshire primary is now set for january 10, and you

can follow campaign 2012 online had disease been video library. click on the campaign 2012 have to access the candidate and events. the c-span video library -- washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is congressman jim jordan, a republican of ohio, chairman of the republican study committee which is more lesson in house think-tank for the republican party. ideas generator for the leadership. he is also a member of that the house judiciary committee and a member of the government reform and oversight committee. thank you for being here. we want to talk jobs, but the republican study committee has been very strong about deficit reduction needs for quite a while. i wanted to start by asking you about the deficit reduction super committee. all the reports in the paper suggests they are at an impasse.

what are your thoughts? >> we hope not. we hope they will act to cut spending, which every american knows we need to do. my big concern, based on reports this week, that some of the committee and some members of the overall congress are looking to raise taxes. i think that would be a big mistake. what we need to do is reduce spending. i tell folks all the time -- o we time -- ne to one. we have a $15 trillion economy and almost a $15 trillion debt. anytime you get in that range, it is dangerous. the countries in trouble in europe, they all got to that ratio. we've got to be very nervous and very concerned about where we are at. and cut spending. as you pointed out in your opening remarks, the republicans that a committee has been focused on that for the last 11 months. we introduced a budget that actually got to balance within 10 years. the only one in congress that did. this summer during the deficit debate we brought forward the cut, cap, and balance plan.

cutting it the first year, capped it as a percentage of economy moving forward, and getting to the balanced budget requirements. we will continue to focus on that because that is what we need to do to make sure our country is going to be this great nation that we have got to enjoy, to insure our kids and grandkids will have the same opportunity. host: as you know, and many of our viewers do, the way it was set up by the legislation is that if it does not reach agreement to there will be sequestration, automatic cuts. we are seeing reports in the paper that some members of congress, including some republicans, have cited ways around sequestration. told of having the reductions take place automatically. what would your thoughts be? guest: like i said, we need to cut spending. if they want to, instead of having this sequestere -- and fr defense cuts, national security, and the cuts designed to help --

happen in health care, if we could find other areas to the same amount, or frankly more, i think members are willing to do that. if it is just to kick the can down the road and not reduce spending at all, it is a big mistake. >> your group has put forward a jobs program. at the heart of it, what do you think this country needs to create more jobs? and every speech i give them back home, any meeting of a group of constituents and families, the first question i get -- i ask is how many people do you think need -- how many of you think we need to get rid of the tax code? all the hands go up. how many people think we need to regulate business more? no, we need to stop it. how many people do you think -- think we need a common sense and

a deposit question today are way ahead of the politicians. understand we need to of the tax code, when the common sense and a deposit, and need to put a stop to the additional burdens we bottomed business owners and job creators. we think it is good, common sense. and we think is actually implemented, if we get the president to agree with some of these things, we could begin to foster a climate that i said before is conducive to creating jobs and growing the economy. host: we pulled some numbers on unemployment in the district. 11.5%, now down to 10, or hi 9. what moved the needle? guest: we are diverse, and that we have strong agriculture. and as you know, our manufacturing is starting to rebound here. i visited several manufacturers across our business and state. in fact, there was a headline

in the "daily news" frontpage above the fold say in manufacturing jobs go unfilled. there are manufacturers who are ready to hide. i was in mansfield a few weeks back and talk to the head of the manufacturing council and he said there are 300 jobs waiting to be filled today in mansfield if we could find people willing to come to work who we could hire. they want to hide. so, the reason you see a little drop in that number in our part of the state is manufacturing is starting to rebound, and of course, we had these strong years and agriculture. obviously it is still tough out there and construction and a contract in business and housing and that area. that is holding the whole economy back. but it has been pretty good and agriculture and starting to rebound in manufacturing. host: we would like to get to your phone calls and tweets. we will put all the addresses and phone numbers on the screen --

if you see a rebound in manufacturing, how is that an absence of tax " reform and less regulations? guest: it points to how dynamic the entrepreneurs and business owners in this country are. americans, even in spite of goolsbee government policies, can win, just based on this work ethic and this. we have in this great country. part of it is that. but if we really wanted to unleash a strong economic growth across all sectors then look at a plan like ours -- in the corporate side, we said we will lower the corporate rate from 35% down to 25%, and allow hours from big multinational countries, -- companies, the profit in other countries we will allow to come back home and not get taxed again. then of the personal side -- because remember, a lot of businesses pay their taxes on the personal rate -- we move to

what we call the taxpayer choice act, modeled after the plan that my colleagues like congressman ryan and campbell put together. all the personal side, let us go to a two-rate system, 15% to 25%. let's give generous, dependent deductions and so it is a pro- family-type tax code. but let's get to a simpler model. simpler seems to be conducive for growing the economy and creating jobs. we think it makes a lot of sense on the tax side, not to mention the regulation side and energy component. host: one year and two days out from the election. governor romney has a piece from "usa today." this headline in the washington post. what do you think of the level of conversation and debate about jobs and the economy by the

republican presidential -- guest: i think it is healthy. they are all talking about it, appropriately. mr. perry came out with a planned that is similar to what we proposed in december. similar to what we put together. mr. cain really gained a great deal of appeal with republican primary voters with his plan. whether you like is 9-9-9 or not, the fact is out of the box and recognizes the fundamental fact we need to throw out the current tax code, i think is very appealing. all candidates are focused on this out-of-control spending we have in washington. it is all positive and we are seeing every single candidate, with a plan that is pretty bold. host: speaking of president, former president bill clinton has a new book, written up by the associated press. "back to work -- why we need

smart government for today strong economy." gillard elin blames the anti- government sentiment -- he largely blames the anti- government sentiment of the tea party. he wrote about how his economic policies helped create 22 million jobs and reduce the debt. gigolo, both party spent to much money but this idea -- guest: look, both party spent too much money. but the idea of more government -- it is a big government taxes will get us out of the mess, for goodness sake, we have -- would have been out of this long time ago. that is all the government has done for three years. no, do not look for government to create jobs, let's look for government to set the proper framework, get out of the way of the job creators of the private sector can create jobs. a fundamental difference in the

approach. mr. clinton seems to advocate more government, which again, we have done it for the last three years. frankly, i would agree with one part of his statement -- we did spend too much money and have too much government in the last administration. but this administration has taken it to a whole level. it is not like we can just blame the other party. i think the bush administration, and the last few years, when they started the bailout and tarpon everything else, had too much government involvement but this administration has taken into a new level. the three largest deficits in american history the last two years. that is why this year -- think about this fact -- i get this back to everything go and -- at every single speech back on. this year we will spend $231 billion in interest payments to service this $15 trillion debt. interest rates are what? historic low. we cannot go any lower. they are going to go up. if they go up just modestly,

within 10 years we will be approaching close to $1 trillion in interest payments. if they go up dramatically, we will get real close to a trillion dollars in interest payments. then we will go to paying more in interest than we currently spend on national defense. it begs the question -- if you are spending more to service debt and then to defend yourself, how you sustain that model? that is why the republican study committee and the conference has been so focused on this congress reducing spending. host: let us get to calls. >> marion, you are on. go ahead, please. caller: yeah. all due respect, sir. you talk a good game, but the fact is it's only after alfa had come out with their solution.

you have to realize you are not the president. president obama is the president. and anytime he comes out with a plan, you talk real sweet about that but that's just generating from what we do. give the man a chance. he is the president. just going around the mulberry bush. it sounds good, but you'll find out when it comes voting time what's going to happen. ok? it sounds sweet, but i guarantee you, he's going to win. >> we have an election in a year. and, you're right, american people, let the people vote. but i will tell you this, the president got everything he wanted. he got the stimulus packages. got the tax increases. he got the health care package. he got everything he wanted. so this idea that he didn't implement his policies just is not true. and frankly, i would be willing to work with the president on some of the things he just said this year. if you go back to january, his

state of the union address, he talked about forming the corporate tax code, lowering corporate rates, things that would make sense and again help set a framework for job creation and economic growth. we're willing to work with the on those things. i think we should reform the taxes. i think we should allow dollars to come back home to companies who make profits overseas. create american jobs. we're willing to work with the president. we just want the president to sit down with us and let's get sit down with us and let's get host: similar themes to the ones you're talk about, as you can see, down the scorecard is negative for republicans in jobs added and taxes for working families going up, republican plans going down under the white house. fewer teachers in the classroom doesn't help get construction workers back on the job. are you sure that your plan

will create jobs and the president's won't? >> ask the american people because the president plans the same old, same old. we've done this for three years now. the government suggests more government spending, raising taxes on certain americans. more, quote, infrastructure. all the things we talked about in the stimulus package. we have a plan that frankly builds on the -- we sent 15 different bills. now after this week it's even more. so things that would help on the regulatory side. every single business owner you talk to will tell you that the word we've heard now for years, for the last couple of years, is the uncertainty that exists in our economy today. and business owners saying, you know what? i'm not really sure if this health care law will kick in, what it will cost me. i'm not sure in they're going to raise my taxes. the president talks about raising taxes every day. he's fixated on it. so we're not sure about that. we keep having additional regulation and burdens added to it. know what? instead of taking that risk we

would normally take that would help us get out of this segment of the economy and grow jobs, most businesses don't understand i'm just going to wait. and so we need to get rid of that uncertainty by saying we're not going to keep adding regulations. in fact, we're going to get rid of the ones that don't make sense, reform the tax code, and that would make a lot of sense. and everyone instinctively understands that many. >> where are you specifically on business taxes. the debate ranges from corporations are unfairly taxed, some paying too much, some paying too little to a flat tax proposal. >> our plan goes to 25%. takes it from 35% or 25%. we instruct the appropriate committees in congress to look at those deductions, those exemptions that companies currently get to look at those and say which ones make sense and which ones can we get rid of. so we move to lower that rate. we also focus on a territorial system and say, ok, i use the example of proctor & gamble taws -- because it's a big company

all over the globe. when -- say in india, they pay taxes there. if they then want to bring that money back to ohio or the united states and create jobs and invest it here, they're taxed again in the united states. we're saying they're taxed over there. when you bring it back, put it to work creating jobs. the government shouldn't hilt you again with additional taxes. host: just to understand your -- so it's not completely flat, as you proposed it. there would be some -- guest: the goal is to move to a flat tax. mid-term flat for corporations. that up to the experts. that's the appropriate way to work. host: ok. burlington, north carolina, for congressman jim jordan this caller is debbie, a republican there. good morning, debbie, you're on. >> thank you. caller: good morning. i hope everybody's doing well. host: thank you. caller: in my humble opinion, i'm not a rocket scientist, i am just an average american

citizen. but i pride myself on having some common sense. and common sense tells me that if it is the private sector that funds the public sector, we have to do what we can. guest: well said. caller: so my point is number one, we need to go to a flat tax. guest: yeah. caller: we need to get rid of the loopholes in the tax system. government needs to get out of the way of picking winners and losers. guest: well said. caller: that way we can all be winners. if spending more government money was the answer, heck, i'm look outside my window. my highway is not paved in gold. so my point is, we have got to put out the open for business sign here in the united states, and do what we can to help the private sector make jobs for all of us. thank you. and have a blessed day.

guest: thank you. i couldn't have said it better. i think debbie has hit on something that i sense is happening across the country. americans are so frustrated with the current -- with the current tax code. and they view it from a fundamental fairness perspective. the fact that we have -- most numbers are around 46%, 47% of the population not paying income tax. that bothers americans. this is the main path. they think everyone should be contributing. and then you have on the other end, for whatever reason, you had general electric second quarter not paying corporate taxes. and americans say any tax code that allows those two things to happen is fundamentally unfair, and we need to reform it. and debbie said it better than i think any elected official can say. again, i think moving towards a flatter, simpler system is exactly what's needed. host: next up, a call from washington, d.c.

stephanie, you're on. caller: everybody keeps putting out this 47% not paying taxes. have you ever done a program that tells you -- that breaks it down exactly what that 47% is? i would really like to know. host: ok. thanks. caller: and also, i have a pro republican thing and anti-republican. first of all, the pro republican. everybody needs to look at betty roemer, betty roemer2012. the republicans are desperately trying to keep him out of every debate. and the guy's down in florida -- even though he has 7% approval down in florida, the chairman there just automatically cut him out. so everybody look at buddy roemer 2012 and see why they're cutting him out. host: ok. a question for the congressman, please.

caller: regulation, congressman -- regulation equals rules and laws. and people wonder why nobody from wall street went to jail. because they away with regulation. and that's why you keep wanting to do away with regulation. if you have rules on the books and law that people can break, they can go to jail. isn't that correct? why you want the deregulation everything? guest: no. you can over regulate and make it burdensome and dollars will have to be used to comply with federal regulations, the paperwork, and everything else that's there. and when you do that, there's an opportunity to use those resources to create jobs. i'll give you a great example. a great example of the regulation that didn't make sense and it's been repealed. in the democrat signature piece of legislation in the last congress, the health care law, there was a provision, the 1099 provision, in which was going to

be extremely on russ on small business owners and business as cross the country, and everyone understood. they said this is ridiculous. and even though it was contained in a signature piece of legislation for the other party, it was repealed because people said this is a regulation that is going to hurt job creation the democrats will come to get rid of it. so to say that government never has a regulation that's going to hurt job creation, of course we do. and, again, if i got news to talk to small business owners in your state, in my state across the country and they will all tell you. things we have to do to comply -- i had two good friends of mine, brother who's are in manufacturing. i'll remember this forever. they said to me -- we were day, and they said -- the one guy said, jim, the thing that frustrates me is i love income business, but the thing that frustrates me is being an employer because of all the things you make me do -- pointing to me, talking about that government makes me do when i hire someone.

that's what we got to understand. when people take the risk to hire someone, there are all kinds of things to comply with that make it difficult to do very act, hire someone and give them an opportunity to create a job. host: the joint committee on taxation released a report this week. bloomberg is reporting on it. reports on g.o.p. efforts -- reports from the chief congressional tax rates without increasing deficit -- guest: again, when you look at something in a static way, say if you're going to do this here, the rate here, you've got to remember our economy is

dynamic. and every time we have engaged in lowering the rates on the personal side and, frankly, on the corporate side, over time you get economic growth which then brings in additional revenue to the treasury. so i think we have to look at that concept when we're thinking about tax reform. >> next call from washington of early morning out there. this is barbra, democrat, you're on. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i am one of the 99%, and i want government for the people as it was originally designed. we don't want unelected people like grover norquist setting policy for this country. mr. jordan, think about this fact. we have more poor and hungry americans in our country now than we have ever had before.

and we need revenue. think about their uncertainty. think about the people who can't feed themselves and can't take their kids to any social events or have them play in sports or have no because they money. this is who needs the revenue. the people need the revenue. not all the rich people, not the 1%, the 99%. need revenue like you get. guest: and barbara, the party you support has been in power. they control all of government. until 11 months ago they controlled all of government. 15 months ago they had a super majority in the senate so they could pass any law they want so why is that the case? host: i moved ton another caller, so she will not be able to answer you. let me go back to your first statement about the importance not to raise taxes. a number of your colleagues said this week, 40 all told, including cynthia lumas, joined 60 democrats suggesting that all options need to be considered for the super committee, even

looking for new revenue. have they broken ranks with you? how do you feel about that? guest: i think you have to ask each of those 40 what they mean by revenue. i know what democrats mean by revenue. i know what a lot of folks in this town mean by revenue, tax increases. and i am strongly opposed to that route. i assume that some of those members when they're talking about revenue, they're not talking about tax increases. but i am very nervous that there is a will around here by some to look at tax increases in this super committee report that is due in just a few weeks. and that is the exact wrong approach, in my opinion. to add the additional uncertainty to business owners out there that we're going to increase the tax burden is exactly the wrong way to go. host: does that include the speaker? guest: the speaker has been strong. i think our whole leadership team has been strong in saying they're not going to support tax

increases. during the debate it was an issue raised then. there was talk of revenue from the other side. team was very strong in saying we are not going to raise taxes. so i don't anticipate a tax increase. but i am concerned, obviously, by the talk this week of both the letter signed by 100 members of congress that seems to indicate some would be willing to entertain tax increases. and, frankly, report earlier this week, the group of six within the group of 12 that talked about at least willing no, sir consider -- willingness to consider a tax increase. host: speaking of speaker john boehner, a report this morning, house speaker john boehner still searches for keys to his house. it suggests in the piece that house speaker john boehner's mantra is the house should work its will, his will, and that the house are so often at odds.

how is he doing as speaker? guest: he's got the toughest job in the town. here he is speaker of the house, and he's got a fairly diverse group of 240-some republicans. i think he's doing a great job. he's got -- he's got to deal with the legislation, with the white house. so it's the toughest job in town. it's certainly not easy. but i think he's doing a good job. host: does your friendship, the ohioans, give you a special ear to him? guest: he'll listen to any that wants to visit with him. he's very good about that. the thing i appreciate a great deal about the speaker as well is the openness of the process. if you go back to the very first bill we dealt with in this congress, h.r.1, which was a continued resolution of the budget tax bill -- it was an open process allowing members to take their best idea, come to the floor, offer it as an amendment, and participate in the process. that's the way it's supposed to work. that's the way members who

represent over 700,000 people in their district are supposed to come with their ideas and take their best shot. he has been very receptive to that process throughout his tenure as speaker. host: we have about five minutes left with you. our next caller from texas. a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. sir, first i'd like to ask you, did you sign grover norquist -- guest: of course i signed it. caller: that was a pledge that made that no matter what, they wouldn't raise taxes. guest: i think some democrats signed it, too. caller: let me finish. guest: just wanted to make that point. caller: and now -- disavowed from the republicans, 11 from the senate have not re-signed the pledge, and 40 from the house have not re-signed the pledge and are willing to put taxes on the line. and that's because of the 99%

and the people that's protesting against wall street. i can't understand why you can there and say that the corporations need more money when in arkansas whirlpool laid off thousands of workers and cost the state of arkansas arkansas $61.15 billion, but they made a profit of $134 billion. host: we have to stop you right there. thank you for your call. guest: i would just say to the gentleman, is raising taxes on the example you used, whirlpool so raising taxes on whirlpool would add jobs? this idea so raising taxes on oil companies will lower the price of gas? how many people really believe that? the idea is, no, we need to reform our energy policy to lower the price of gas and help families and help our economy. the idea that somehow raising taxes is going to create an

environment that's more suited for job decree yairks i fail to see the logic. i think most americans understand that as with ok, raising taxes on small businesses, on the wealthy, just not going to work. every time it's tried, it doesn't work. the truth is, we've been doing this approach the last three years. more taxes, more spending, more federal control, more regulation. and look what it's got us. 9% unemployment. $15 trillion debt, largest deficit in the american history, and an economy that just is sort of stagnant and meandering along. host: governor quist is on this program this week and many callers echoed the sentiments we just heard thinking that the pledge supercedes the ability to find compromise in washington. guest: ask any american. do you think american is taxed too little and needs their taxes raised or do you think the problem in washington is the politicians spend too much money? think about this on a fundamental level. everyone likes to spend money. in washington, politicians get

to spend other people's money and never have to be held accountable to do what every family has to do, live within their means. we get to borrow and spend. frankly, it's another form of taxation. when you borrow and spend, that's taxing future generations so this idea to raise taxes makes no sense. to do and what the republicans are focused on doing is cutting spending. host: this observation from atlanta progressive who tweets tweets -- also cut some taxes in there and they reformed things. they did welfare reform. they get a balanced budget under the work of our governor. so they worked on bringing down spending. host: last call for from you charlotte, north carolina. frank, independent. good morning. caller: good morning, sue. good morning, congressman. morning.od caller: on the subject of jobs, i keep hearing this statement made "let's grow jobs." ok?

jobs are directly related to the economy. are not created by giving a tax reduction to a business. please don't interrupt me. i understand your position, on raising taxes. but what happens is there's no businessman who you lower his taxes is going to hire three or four new people. they need to hire new people that comes from needing to ramp up business because the demand is high. demand is not high because the consumer does not have money to spend. he's afraid of losing his job or didn't have one right now. so i don't want to hear any baloney -- gipp how's the trade demand and their model? so how would you create demand under your model? caller: the jobs have to come back to the united states somehow, ok, through these poor trade agreements. and number two, we have to stop importing workers from other countries at the rate of one million per year. how do we make a dent in the

unemployment figure it's we have an unlimited guessworker in this country? host: we're out of time. guest: i'm on the judiciary committee where we deal with immigration policy and the gentleman is right, we need to toughen the law when it comes to particularly illegal immigration. keep coming back to our job -- our job is not to create jobs. government doesn't create them. our job is to set the proper framework so that there is growth in our economy. and because there's growth in our economy, employers are going to want to create jobs. because it makes sense for their business. government is trying to say, oh, we'll give you this break, this tax. businesses create jobs because it makes sense for their business because they have to meet demand. but it makes sense for them to create the profit and move their business in the right direction. republican study committee has its own website if

you'd like to read more about their jobs plan of the this is what it looks like. it is also connected through the congressman's own website. rfc.jordan.house.gov. the congressman has links on his own website in congress for more about his jobs and economic proposals. thanks for being here to talk to our callers. appreciate it. we're going to take a break. then we'll be look at how american households have changed, especially since the 2008 economic crisis. the head of the census bureau will be here with the statistical overview of american households.

continue your statement, please? you will receive the answer. do not worry. >> i am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over if that's your decision. >> he was the u.n. bass ambassador for president kennedy, a former governor of illinois, and twice ran as the democratic nominee for president and lost. adlai stevenson is featured this week on c-span series "the contenders." live tonight at 8:00 eastern. for a preview, including more of his speeches and other videos, go to our special website for the series c-span.org/thecontenders. every weekend on "american history tv" the people and events that document the american story. this weekend on american artifacts, william alden on the decorative and fine arts rarely seen outside the white house now on display at the smithsonian. and from the civil war, an

author on historical fiction. and from the film vault, following barry goldwater in 1964. look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span. org/history or for our schedules in your inbox, click the c-span alert button. >> when i got into public, started selling my books, every person i worked with i had a rejection letter from. which was kind of cool. so you go to a meeting and they're like, we love your stuff. then it's like what about this? >> in his non-fiction, questioning the motivations, ethics, and morality of brilliant people. his account with mark zuckerberg and the creation of facebook was adapted for the screen as "the social network," "bringing down the house" followed a group of students who won millions in las vegas, and his latest, "sex on the moon" tracks the possible astronaut candidate as he steals

a safe filled with moon rocks. now it's your chance to ask the questions. call, e-mail or tweet live on "in depth" sunday at noon eastern on "book tv" on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and on your screen is the director of the census bureau who is our guest this morning our continuing series "america by the numbers." today we're look at the changes in u.s. household demographics. i want to tell people that really this idea for this continuing look at american statistics was something you talked to c-span about because numbers inform the policy debates in the country. as an example of that, i wanted to show our audience the op lead in today's "new york times" which comes from census bureau numbers.

simpler measures quietly published in the past suggest among other things that shaping that program has played a large and mostly overlooked role in a restrange hardship. as much as half of the reported rise in poverty since 2008. this appears under the new measurements. this is a great example of how your numbers are used to inform the policy debate. what's happening here? guest: what's happening here is a fascinating story of both academics and those worried about policy affecting the welfare of people to get it right, basically, over several decades. the observations that the real lives of people depend on a variety of sources of income and a variety of sources of

expenses. and to really characterize in a way that reflects that reality that we need to reflect all the sources of income and all the sources of cost as best possible. so for several decades there have been national academies of sciences, efforts to improve that process. and we have developed, with the help of interagency group from the office of management and budget, a knew measure, a supplementy poverty measure, that we'll all begin to watch along with the traditional measures, too. so that's an effort to get it better and better as time goes on. host: and overall, when you add these additional measures, how do things stand in the poverty level? guest: we'll see that monday. [laughter] tell what you "the new york times" is reporting. you can nod your head if they've got it right. the measures have also shown less poverty among children but more among older americans plagued by high medical costs. they have shown less poverty

among blacks with more among asians. less poverty in rural area and more in cities and suburbs. are you nodding your head? guest: that's a correct statement. host: there you go. it does link in, it's on american households. we've got a statistic about the poverty rate being effected by the number of people in the household. why don't we start there, and you can tell us how these two portraits link in understanding america. guest: so if you go to that chart -- it's a little so let me talkrt you through it. first of all, we're zeroing in on people who are 25 to 34 years old so this is a chart about them. and it's reflecting a phenomenon we're seeing increasing over the last few years. and that is that this group of people are returning to their parental homes or staying in their parental homes a little longer. and this chart on the very left

bar says that 15% of that entire age-group would fall under the official poverty rate. but then if you zero in on those who are living with their parents, that's another rate. so you might say there's a benefit of staying with mom and dad. and if you ask the question, what if those same people were living by themselves what would their poverty rate be? that's the last mark. and it zooms up the 45% so this doesn't answer the question about why are they doing it. but it i illustrates that their income would be that their household income would be terrificly different if they live by themselves versus living with their parents. and one suspects that's related to these decisions. host: which is why we hear so many stories about young people returning home to live with

their parents for much longer than they have in the past. we're going to dig into this which we call changing american households. for a discussion with you this morning, we really want to bring you in to this conversation to tell your stories. tell us since 2008 in particular, since the economic downturn, has your household composition changed? have you brought aging parents into the house? have you added renters into your house? have you made other decisions about the composition of your household as a result of the economy? and we're going to supplement that with a national portrait shown by the numbers about what happening to the american household. can you talk about it in a general sense about what's happening? then we'll look at specifics. guest: first of all what we're talking about today is us, really. civilizations have always developed groupings of people who share housing. and generally share resources. they eat together, they live together. and those patterns of clustering have changed over time. so it's a fascinating look at

how the american society has changed over time on that very basic thing. now this in these times is quite relevant to the macroeconomy. how many housing units are needed by our choices of how we cluster together is an important issue with regard to vacancies and housing units, the need for more housing units and so on. so this is important stuff for all of us. to talk about -- and the definitions are important in this. a single person household and also what constitutes a family. so in the eyes of the census department what do those terms mean? kind of geeky jarringian, but it's important to get the language right so we'll be talking today about families at times. and by that we mean people who are related by birth or marriage or adoption so these are husbands and wives, sons and daughters, brother and sisters. and then we'll talk about households as people who live together in a housing unit. we have a special term in

measurement of households in this country called the householder. that's a special person in the measurement process. that's the person who pays the rent or pays the mortgage in his name. so those are the key terms we'll be using. >> so how american households are changing. you started to touch on this, but here are the bullet points. i'll let you take it away. guest: absolutely. if you ask, why are we forming these clusters of house million dollars different way overs time, there are three big things to keep in mind. i think one is, we have changed in the united states gradually our patterns of marriage. we are delaying our marriages to a later point in life. and that effects how we cluster together in household. the second thing is what we just started with. there are more adults and housing units -- in housing

units than in the past. and that's that returning phenomenon, we think. and then we see at the end that the number of earners in a household has changed over time. we have more households that are multi-earner households. and they have a different course over time. host: we're going to look at one slide, and then start mixing our callers in. the percentage of families with children by family type. this is a long-term snapshot. 1950 through last year. guest: that's right. this is a dramatic societal change. it looks like data from many developed countries. but let's just zoom in on 1960, which is the highest bar there. the blue part of the bar describes the proportion of households, proportion of families that are married couples with children. host: so additional -- guest: the stereotype of what

america looks like. then the red portion of the bar those with children but with a single household and no spouse present. so we go in left to right. and that is the height of the bar going down. we have fewer households with children. and then notice how the share of the household with children is getting more for the red side. and those are single householders with out-of-spouse presence so that's a pretty dramatic societal change. host: so since you're involved in the middle of the debate in washington over policy, as an example, where are the many avenue that these kinds of statistics effect policy discussions? guest: well, all of our issues with regard to children, first of all. and that brings into education and what is the parental home base of those families that had

kids. but also deeper if we drove into these what are the characteristics of the with kids? are those increasing? those changing over time. so this is relevant. host: when does someone stop being a child? guest: arbitrarily we use the age 18. at that point you become an adult in our terms. host: for the director of the census, let's take some calls. we'll begin with scottsville, arizona. tony. and we're asking you to tell us a little bit about your own story. has our own household changed especially since 2007, 2008, with the economic downturn. hi, tony. you're on. caller: hi. good morning. here in arizona, i feel like my situation unfortunately is probably pretty indicative of what's happened to a lot of people across the country. i'm in the lumber business out here in arizona. of course, we're directly tied to the housing industry.

so since 2007, i still have a job but my pay essentially has been cut in half. i've gotten divorced. i've been able to keep my house but only through a loan modification. i've taken on two renters in my house from a couple of other -- well, the one gal who stays with me now, she became unemployed from a home depot in colorado. i had another fellow staying here. he was unemployed from a health care business. but it's really indicative, i think, what's going on all across the country. so my home situation has changed drastically. i still have my house, thank god. i've had to take on renters and do what we can to try to make ends meet. again, i think it's pretty indicative of what's happened to a lot of people across the country. host: tony, thanks so much for telling bus your story. -- us about your story. so someone who went from being a

nuclear family is now a single person householder with two renters. how does that show up in the statistics? guest: that's right. in the statistics i talked about today we would label tony's new household as a non-family household. he is there with it sounds like a couple of renters. and actually tony's story is even more pertinent to everything that we're talking about today. so your occupation of construction, especially in arizona, is relevant to what we're talking about because we're seeing vacancy patterns of housing units across the country changing as a function of the recession and the need for housing construction changing. so tony's story is shared by a lot of people. these are the kinds of things we're talking about today. host: we've just gotten the new unemployment numbers. and a little bit of movement, continued movement downward. the unemployment rate now at 9%

and 80,000 jobs added in the weekly look at unemployment in the united states. we'll add that statistic to our mix as we're talking about the economy and its effect on households. we'll take one more call, get another story, and then go back to the numbers. this one is from chelsea, michigan. michigan also hard hit in the economy. how that affected your household, tim? caller: well, i heard there was a big boom in north dakota. i was thinking about going up there. i heard about all the good jobs, hiring at $15 an hour and all of that stuff. and then there was an article in the paper by bloomberg from new york and he said that, number one, the economy boom was in north dakota, and number two was michigan. i thought, well, not a lot of live in north dakota and there's 672,591 residents in north dakota and there's

8,883,740. that's a lot of people compared to north dakota. so i was just wondering, how can that be an economic boom and michigan being second? isn't that kind of like taking michigan look -- making might mn look bad? guest: it sounds like you're citing figures from the census bureau so i'm with you entirely on what you're doing. you know, booms -- boom is a word that has many different definitions. so your citing of those statistics of population differences is right, i assume. and smaller states, one should know, are easier to grow fast. so i point out nevada, which is the last two censuses has been growing at a very, very high rate. but it, too, like north dakota started out with a relatively small population. now, boom also has a definition

with regard to job vacancies, openings for jobs. i suspect some of the north dakota articles have to do with that. so that's a different issue with regard to occupational opportunities in states. host: callers, we're seeking stories of your own household and how things there may have changed or if they haven't, and if things are doing well for you. tell us that as well as you call in this morning as we look with dr. robert groves at the changing landscape of the american household. let's go back to the charts and graves here. next one is unmarried couples, presence of children, the wind yo frame 1996 to win 2010. guest: so over this period, 1996 to 2010, we're measuring the amount of the households that have unmarried couples in them. this is a phenomenon that is growing. so let me help you read this. the dark portion of this graph

describes those couples that are married. and you can see it. it does increase somewhat over these years. and the lighter color are those that are unmarried. and that's increasing at a much greater rate. there's one feature i have to point out. we actually improved our measurement of unmarried couples starting in 2007. so notice the big break there in the series. and notice the big jump. so what's that jump about? that jump is about our ability to measure unmarried couples that are not nearly coupling with the householder that may be another one so let me give you an example of this. this might be a mother-father spousal relationship and then a and an unmarried female living together. and that would be an example of an unmarried couple not involved

in the household. and look at the right most portion of that. there have been great increases in that phenomenon over the past two years as we go through this recession. so the unmarried coupling appears to be -- looks proportionately high in those groups that are lower income so a lot of these new unmarried couples, one of the members of the couple sun employed -- is unemployed. and they have moved in together. this is completely compatible with income reason, resource reasons for coupling. >> and as we dig a little deeper in the unmarried couples with children, can you tell us more about some of the demographics there? >> we will. we have a few other charts. we will illustrate them. give a little more detail as someone who tweeted to ask what the former unemployment rate was. 9.1% in prior months.

in october it's just edged down to 9% from 9.1%. economists had forecast 90,000 job increase. in fact, the u.s. added 80,000. so we'll see how the market reacts to that news today. nextel phone call for dr. groves is from cleveland. good morning. c-span.good morning, i'm 33 years old. cleveland has been hit crippling hard since 2008. myself and my children have had to move back home with my mother. this is the first time i've had to go back home with my mother. host: how old are you? caller: i have four children. host: you brought your four kids home, too? caller: yes. we had no choice. in cleveland, there's no jobs. although there's tons of vacant housing, there's no housing. like i said, my best friend is in the same situation.

she just had to go back home with her daughter. host: let me understand the composition of your household. so was your mother live alone before you came home? caller: my mother is living with her godmother who is 92 years old. host: and how old is your mother? caller: 63. host: so a 90-year-old, a 63-year-old, and now yourself. how old are you. caller: 34. host: and your children's ages? caller: 14, 11, 10, 9. and then my mother is fostering my two nephews. host: my goodness. caller: it's pretty full. host: how's that going for your family? caller: well, because the congressman said, we're pulling our resources together and making it. but we're just making it. host: how many people that household are employed? caller: both me and my mother are receiving disability. host: thank you for your call this morning.

caller: well, this is a common story as the data show. your household has a challenge of all of these people living together but also the richness of multiple generations and the learning that goes on for your children from their grandmother and great grandmother. this is another part of it that's a phenomenon. for tracking this movement over time, you know, in one sense, one measure of our recovery will be the change in these housing patterns over time. an important thing to watch. host: because -- when you begin to see that happening in a meaningful way it will be reflected. guest: it's remembered. host: here's a chart from the percent of households with just one person in them. guest: this is a fascinating chart. i could show you data from other developed country that look quite simpler.

this starts in 1960, so a long time ago it goes to this year, 2011. of that line is the percent of the households with only one person in them. so these are single person households. it started out in 1960, about 13%. it's more than doubled to 28%. so what's going on here? this is the real reflection of delay in marriage and also the fact that we're live longer. those who are unmarried tend to live by themselves. and then as we age and spouses die, that produces other single person households. so this is a great reflection of how our society has changed on marriage and on life expectancy. host: and here is single person households by age and householder. more detail?

guest: this tells the same story. these are 2010 estimates. host: but your eye goes right to that 65-plus older americans live alone. guest: absolutely. so the big contrast here is between the 65-plus group on the right, very high, live alone 45% or so. and then compare that to the 35 to 44-year-olds who are disproportionately married. so as we age, a few things happen. divorces kick in as we age. and that creates more single person units. and then a death of a spouse, widowhood occurs. it's a very common pattern of single person households by age. host: nextel phone call in our conversation about the changing of american households. laura in erie, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to just give you a little

background. i'm a nurse practitioner and i work with mete ok'd pregnant -- medicaid pregnant ladies. and sadly 90% are unmarried that are coming to our clinic. i want to quote, you finally got to the point that i wanted to address. according to u.s. census bureau the poverty rate for single parents with children in the united states was 36.5% in 2008 compared to married couples with children was only 6.4%. you need to address the fact, just like the cleveland caller, there was no marriage in that equation. she had four children. she had what she called two nephews. where are the fathers in these households? marriage drops the probability of child poverty by 82%. and we're not even addressing it. like it's just another part of the equation. it's not. it's the most important part. marriage is protective. and we need to start encouraging not only marriage initiatives

with tax, you know, credit for people who do commit to each other and then to their children, but also for abstinence education. if they are taught to not engage in sex because they're married, they're not going to have these babies out of wedlock. they're not going to be trapped in poverty. they're also not going to get, you know, infected with many of the s.p.d.'s that we're talking about, h.i.v.-aids. it's all related to what we reward. and right now a married couple coming into my clinic doesn't qualify because they make too much. we should be saying if you're married, you get many more benefits because it's healthy for society. host: thanks. guest: this is a great observation because it illustrates what the census bureau statistical operations are all about. our job is to give to you and the entire u.s. public estimates of what's going on in the

country so that can you have this discussion in an informed way. so we're part of the feedback in a democracy. we're giving back to the citizenry information about their lives and how the welfare of this society. it's with those estimates that we hope that these kinds of discussions will be formed. you don't take policy sides in this. our job is to give you the best information we can so that the debate will be informed. host: this chart, percentage of married couple and unmarried partner households by the age of householder in the year 2010. guest: this is important. this is 2010 data. look at the light blue bars first. it discards the percent of households by age where there's a unmarried partner household. you can see this is a phenomenon that's disproportionately among young people.

we've labeled that the delay in the marriage decision. and then contrast that with the dark blue bars, much larger. these are the married households. and you can see how that climbs to that middle age-group of 35 to 44. then flattens out and then declines because of widowhood as the age goes on. read stories about the fact that more and more seniors might be moving in together, unmarried, because of economic reasons and also just more social protection as they get older and that sort of thing. the number is not very high here. guest: no. that number is not very high. now, some of those would fall out and be labeled non-family households with roommates. so there's a lot of way that seniors can get together and share housing.

host: let's look at another set of definitions. and why are these important to talk about? guest: well, there's been a lot of discussion recently about whether households are doubling up as a reaction to the recession. we talked about this a bit. as it turns out, that's kind of a complicated thing. what do we mean by doubling up? so we have this notion of having an additional adult in the household. we've labeled that a person who's 18 years or older who isn't renting or owning the house and isn't the spouse of the person renting or owning the and is not enrolled in school. so we're trying to characterize through this notion of an additional adult. and then there are two other definition that are important. i think we mentioned these already. a distinction between families and non-families. and that has to do with marriage

and birth relationships, adoption relationships. host: so an ohio caller moved in with her mom and children, family household. and the phoenix, divorced dad living by himself who took in two renters not related to him is a non-family household. let's go back to calls. new york city. this is mike. hello. caller: hi. hello. how are you? thank you for c-span. let me first share my story here in new york city. then i have a question for director. my story, and this is kind of segueing on the young lady who just called. i'm a dad. i have three children. i've been married close to 20 years. in 2008 i lost my job, was downsized. i found out that what i had -- i had a 401k plan that kind of took us through the first year. but i also took some lower

paying sales jobs. and to me it seems as if -- that the types of jobs that are out there, especially in new york city are some of the lower paying jobs so what i had to do was put in my mind, hey, mike, what you need to do is go for some of these lower paying sales jobs, you know, for a while, do what i have to do. and that's what i did. luckily recently i just was hired with u.p.s. so i go from a job paying, you know, $90,000 a year, base, bonuses, some years more than that. and i had to sort of recoven figure myself to say, hey, those days are over. 401k plan, things have changed. what i think that is different at this particular point in time is i want to definitely continue

with this job at u.p.s. but also i'm looking for something -- [inaudible] host: we only is about five minutes left. how that question, also, for the director? caller: yes. so my question is it seems like you have a lot of information on statistics. my question so you is, would you say, number one -- the number one way to get more out of poverty, would it be tax cuts for the rich or would it be more jobs? thank you. guest: well, that's a good question. a good person to answer that question. so a said to an earlier caller, our job in the statistical system of the u.s. is to give you as much information as possible toal lieu you to form your own -- to allow you to form own opinion. and presumably after that pin is formed, exercise your role as a in voting and other

political action. host: back to the census department's charts and graves about american households. this is percentage of u.s. households with at least one additional adult. and this is since the economic decline in 2007. we see it peaked in 2010 and is starting to edge back down a little bit. guest: that's right. these are mild changes. i think one might say. so in 2007, about 19.7% of households had one additional adult. it went up to about 20.8 there. does appear to be a leveling. both family households and non-family households saw that increase. it would be fascinating to watch whether 2012 brings us another decline on these numbers. they appear to be calming down and declining. and we all need to watch that. host: this is a distribution of

total adult population and additional adult by age category. what's going on here? >> well, this chart and the next chart really answers the question, who are these additional adults? so it's a little tricky to read. if you go to the top bar, look at the number 13%. of all adults, 13% are in the 18 to 24-year-old age-group. and then you go one more age-group, 18% of the 25 to 34. so that's of all adults in the country. under 34 years of age we're look at here. right? guest: right. now go down to the lower bar. and these are additional adults. look at what a greatly increased percentage are the young, 18 to 24 in that middle 25 to 34. so what does this chart tell us? it says these additional adults in these households young people people -- basically dd -- young

people, basically. that fits the stereotype. host: and how many of the child in the household? guest: we're dooming in now -- in now on 259 to 34 -- 25 to 34-year-olds. we've separate it had by sex. you see from -- the mid 1980's to the present, a pretty dramatic increase in these -- adult children living with their parents, basically, over the past few years. and notice the contrast between males and females here. is an important contrast that we're seeing in this recession. an earlier program you had, susan, i think talked about how male unemployment or male occupations were disproportionately hit by the recession. and it looks like males are staying with their parents longer or moving back with their parents to a greater degree than

females. host: mobile, alabama. we don't have much time left, so tell us briefly about your story. caller: i was laid off in january of 2010 at a new york funding center bank. i've had two jobs since then. one was working for mr. groves doing the census. and recently i just started, like the other caller, as a u.p.s. seasonal helper. for the holidays. host: what's happened to your house as you've gone through this? host: the house has stayed the same. have three grown children. fortunately they've all got good, mostly technology, jobs. host: and none have moved back? caller: well, they -- over the past 10 years, yes, each one of them spent their time back with mom and dad. but since that time, they've all gotten out on their own. they're all working