ifth astecos. fan

trd

y

l h

died. hudson, new hampshire, democrats line. caller: i was trying to do an article for a local newspaper a week ago and i went around to the banks and credit unions and was trying to get an idea of what their fees were. and how the compared to each other. sometimes it took me 45 minutes to get a table of fees. sometimes they had it on paper and sometimes they did not have been a and sometimes i took back a day later. i never wrote the article. was that message. host: -- it was that messy. host: which was better? caller: i have my account at bank of america. it is so confusing and last year i read every single book on the stuff that is happening.

i read all these books and i am trying to understand it. i will probably be moving some of my money out of bank of america to a smaller bank. i feel bad that i cannot help other people because i cannot understand the fees myself. host: where do you think you will move to? caller: i have my 401k with bank of america. they've got maryland doing it now. they sent me notice is constantly -- but that merrill lynch doing it now. they sent me notice is constantly. -- they send me notice is constantly -- notices consulate. their investment people do not know anything. i have to inform myself which is kind of sad. i just look for the boys and

girls clubs. -- i just work for the boys and girls clubs. i don't know anything about this. host: on bank transfer day, a moment where there are folks on line and across the nation asking folks to transfer out of their larger banks into smaller community banks and credit unions because of issues over fees and that kind of things, we are asking if you are planning on switching your bank because of the same kind of ideals are maybe you are not planning to do so. you can register your thoughts on line or you can send us your thoughts via the phone. fort wayne, indiana, republican line. caller: i am wondering how people see an advantage of going to a bank. i belong to a credit union. i get the same response. i have tried to open a health savings account and nobody is interested in doing that.

they say get on line and do it yourself. any place you go whether it be a credit union or a bank, i don't see any of them being helpful at all. host: do they tell you why they decide not to help you out? .aller: no, they don't the lady at my credit union was filing her nails while i was talking to her. host: on the screen is some information about bank transfer of day. it gives you information about the effort but some of the information of the money involved in savings accounts particularly among the savings -- credit union savings accounts. kansas city, missouri, democrats line -- caller: i am with bank of america. yesterday, i shopped around and

got to a credit union and ask questions. i ask which banks i can choose because me and my husband traveled a lot and that was a concern. i wondered how i could get my money off of my account. they were really good and let me know that any credit union you can go to you could use their atm for free. use the711's , you can atm there for free. that was really good. they are letting me know that they don't charge any fees and things like that. that was a good thing for not charging for using an atm or debit card. they went over it with me and

even their savings account and interest is really good. i thought that was excellent as well. yes, i will definitely be transferring today. i will take my money out of bank of america and go host: to a credit union what initially caused you to move the money from bank of america? caller: it was the fees that they were talking about putting on and other stuff. they think they are a big bag and they think they can do what ever to the american people. it is just not right. the credit unions are really good. they are not in it for other reasons. they are in it for the people. that is what they are all about. i really love that. they explained everything in detail to make about the policies and the document they

had. she was very good at explaining everything to me and where i could go and things like that. i felt really comfortable and i am definitely transferring today. host: how long will it take you to move everything over to the other bag? caller: that is what i am concerned about. i have no idea and i think it host: will be: michigan, go ahead, independent line. caller: thank you for taking the time for my call. host: you are on, sir. caller: i am a former bank of america -- host: we will go next to baker county, fla., a republican line. caller: i believe this move to transfer the money from the big banks to the small independent or credit unions is a positive move. i believe it would send a

message to the banks to make them take notice of the lower income americans who are the backbone of america. i really believe that a lot of the problems with the financial institution is the globalization of the big banks and some much money is being moved out of the country through the big banks and this international banking is weakening america. the way to get america back to where we were back in the good days, back around world war ii and pre-vietnam, is to keep the money in america. the strength is keeping the money in america and not sending

the money out of america and that is part of the problem with the big banks. they have all this international banking. bank transfer day is the move to move money from bigger banks to smaller ones are credit unions. we want to hear from you if you decide to do it or not to do it. you can call us here is a couple of other stories -- here is mitt romney -- >> tomorrow's singers should have the freedom to choose with their health coverage looks like. younger americans today, when

they turn 65, should have a choice between traditional medicare and other private health-care plans that provide at least the same level of benefits. competition will lower costs and increase the quality of health care. that is the answer for medicare. the federal government will help seniors pay for the options they choose with a level of support that insures all count in the coverage they need. those with lower incomes will receive more generous assistance. beneficiaries can choose to keep the less-expensive options or choose to pay more for a costlier plan. host: that was meant running. -- that what mitt romney ---

boise, idaho, democrats line, go ahead caller: i change my bank account to a small community bank in september because bank of america sent me this 25-page, in the smallest on possible on earth, thing about their enhancement the fee policies on all their accounts. although my personal accounts were not being affected, i decided at that time that i needed to move my money because they have taken all this tarp money from taxpayers and then they have paid it back nonchalantly while they were giving their ceo's and upper echelon employees millions of

dollars. and they were sitting on over $1 trillion of money they are not loaning out, creating a terrible problem in the economy. as far as i'm concerned, i move my money in september and yes, it took a couple of days on the phone to change all my bill-pay accounts but i have never been happier. i got a statement from my smaller bank this week and it is readable and much easier explained. host: do you do a lot of face- to-face interaction with your bank? caller: not really, not as much as i used to. i do most of my things through the computer. i am computer savvy so i pay most of my bills by computer. i am happy that this new bank charges no fees at all. that is one of the ways that got me to move my account.

they were not advertising in the smallest of fund possible that they would charge $8 to send out a bank statement. the big banks are making their own nest. host: "the washington examine" this morning -- you can find out more on their website. in "the washington post" there is a new book from bill clinton.

but volume is dense with criticisms of republicans and attention to what bill clinton describes as the anti-government ideology. appleton, wisconsin, republican line -- caller: when people talk about the big bags, community banks, and credit unions -- i agree with the service levels of a small community banks. i would like to point out that

the small community banks operate at a disadvantage because the credit unions do not pay taxes. i think people should know that. many people don't when you make your choices, you should look at those small community banks. host: 1 comes to the credit unions not paying taxes, what does it mean for the consumer? caller: when you look yet rates and terms and service levels at community banks, they have a 40% disadvantage because they are playing -- paying 40% in taxes and their service levels and everything else are very competitive across the board. you have to ask yourself that these credit unions are nonprofit. host: louisville, kentucky, democrats line -- caller: i think it is great for everyone to think about this and change banks. i am with a credit union. i think it is wonderful. you don't get all these fees. it is easy to read.

they are wonderful to work with if you need a loan. i blame the government and also the lobbyists that work at the banks because they are always ready to get with the people that have been brought into congress and they work with them. i think that is one of the big problems. i don't think anybody in this world -- there should be a lot to make a pledge --a law . host: this is " the new york times" --

"politico " as a story that broke yesterday on herman cain --

san francisco, california, republican line. caller: and not in agreement with taking the money out of bank of america. i have a mortgage with them and i have been treated very well. it is a free country. it is capitalism and you can go anywhere you want to. to denigrate them after what the government did to these banks, they force them under bill clinton, janet reno was threatening them if they did not give loans to people who had no money. the banks are being deteriorated and the whole situation with jobs and corporations trying to borrow, it is important to have these banks functioning. the one person that's up against

the regulation so that we would not be and this financial mess was president obama. when he was a senator he was against anything that george bush wanted to regulate. for us to take a $5 per month charge and start finding a way to destroy a bank is ridiculous. please, people, get hold of yourself and listen why you don't have jobs because you keep following the left. try to vote for republicans and you will find yourself in a much better situation than democrats who want to be one world and not the united states. thank you. host: frederick, maryland, independent line. caller: the problem with the big banks is arrogance and greed. when there was free money circulating throughout the economy which everyone enjoyed at the time, they got addicted.

they have large profit margins and day don't like the small people. i went into the big bank to find out because they said they would charge $75 to transfer from an ira. i read the contract and i could not find the change mentioned in the 20 pages they sent. i went into the bank and as to be given a copy between the contract between us and the lady behind the desk printed it and the manager came out and he said he will not give us the contract. he said we are the bank and we can change anything we want and we don't have to tell you anything. i was amazed and closed my account right there. they are used to having huge profits and they believe they are entitled to them and i don't, thanks. host: says of of twitter --

"politico" as a story about gabrielle giffords. troy, mich., democrats line. caller: before i make my comments, i hate to say this but america has become a laughingstock all over the world. they put got on the back burner.

until we change our ways, -- our ways, it will not change. the banks can rise again. they will have to come down on rates sor's interest people can afford to pay their bills. people not the zero in all this money and it does not only account for the banks. it is for everything. if america would sit back and look, we are hurting in every area and people are greedy and charging us high rates. until we change this, we will not change. we will keep on suffering. it is as simple as that. host: since city, nev., republican line. -- carson city, nev., republican line. caller: i am very disappointed in bank of america. i don't know anyone who has had a good experience there. i am surprised to hear some of

your viewers say good things about them. i think they would be much better -- better off to deal with a local bank or credit union and that bank. that is all i have to say. host: in "the washington post" this morning --

there's more to this story in "the washington post." independent line, go ahead. caller: i am with him for financial credit union out of indiana and i pay $1 per transaction on debit card fees. i don't really think it is the banks that are creating the problem. it is visa, mastercard, and the

processing companies that we all have to use as merchants that charges the fees. it is like all these points that these credit card companies are giving everybody. the points are actually paid for by the merchants themselves. credit unions are heaping on the fees themselves. i don't think by changing your bank it will correct the situation. i think we need to get with visa and mastercard and the processing companies and get them to stop raising rates on merchant accounts and i think that will solve the problem. host: what has been your experience with your credit union? caller: they charges $1 per krenz action per debit feet. host: is your overall experience? caller: it has been ok but you use the credit union because there are no fees usually and

you come to find out they are charging higher fees than bank of america. bank of america is only charging $5 per month. the financial credit union is charging $1 per transaction. other than that, it is not bad but the fee is what has been driving this conversation and the fee is what has been driving the conversation for bank of america for the past couple of days and is not the banks creating the fees. host: part of our road to the white house series, 29 you can see a lincoln-douglas debates. herman cain and newt gingrich will face off in a debate as part of the texas patriots of debate and you could see that live starting at 8:00 tonight on c-span. you can also listen to it on cspan radio. madison heights, mich., democrats line -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say this is the

united states of america not bank of america. they are very shrewd. i have had nothing but trouble with them. they charge on your money. they make up charges. you cannot get through to them. it is nothing but a bad experience all the way around and i don't know about the other big banks. as mr. george w. bush said -- the big banks are too big to fail. they are not too big to fail and i hope every big bank does fail and i hope the credit unions -- my credit union i took all my money out of bank of america about two months ago, put it in the credit union and i am very happy. minimum fees, not maximum fees like bank of america -- the gentleman who said there was a $1 fee is only if you have a certain balance underneath, than

they charge a fee. otherwise i get charged no fees at all. host: difficult was it to switch your bag? caller: it was a little effort. they try to tell me i could only take $750 out per transaction. i had to get with the bank president or vice president at the time. the bank president was out playing golf. they gave me a little trouble about getting my money out but if they would not have got my out, the police would have gotten involved and they probably would have a lawsuit on their hands. use your local credit unions and small banks. get rid of these big banks. they are not too big to fail. thank you very much host: to restore you probably heard in connection with the meeting of the joint deficit-reduction committee and the military budget --

there is a story in " the new york times " ---- our guest on "newsmakers"is representative steny hoyer which you can see tomorrow. he talks about the deliberation and whether its members are talking to leadership about their actions. >> among themselves, they say they will talk confidentially with one another. they do that because nobody wants to be tagged with the

premise that they may be for some very controversial alternative unless that toternative leavds alternative that the other side doesn't like and a successful conclusion can be reached. no, i think i have very little more information than you have. i have talked to the three democrats from the house of representatives with leader nancy pelosi and they have consistently reported back to us that there are substantial discussions and they believe all 12 of the members of the committee are trying to reach a conclusion, a successful conclusion. host: you can see more of that interview on our "newsmakers" program right after this program tomorrow.

andy rooney is dead at 92 years old. he died last night in new york city. one more call on if you are going to switch because of bank transferred day. miami, fla., independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. most folks should realize that the banking industry monopoly and a home mortgage disaster was created by ronald reagan when he nationalized the banking industry. he did it in 1982 with the alternative mortgage parity act. your listeners should research and repeal it. host: what is important for our listeners to know about it? caller: it controls all of the banking industry. it eliminates any state's rights over interest rates or any state rights over how you

analyze the mortgage applicants were any involvement in the home mortgage market. they organized all of their banks in delaware or south could charget they hav anything they want. if you have an action against the bank, you cannot take it locally. you have to take it to the state of delaware. the courts have ruled that the banks are fine charging whatever rates the they want. host: as the last call on that topic. coming up at 8:30, we will be joined by james o'keefe who is a conservative film maker. we will talk about his journalistic efforts. up next, what came out of the g- 20 meetings when it comes to an action plan to help the world economy. . uri dadush

will be our guest to discuss that. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> you cannot understand where the ideas of marx case from unless you knew what was happening around him and his line that some many people take offense from the line of religion as the opiate of the people. unless you know that king said there were the emissaries of god, you would not understand what his revolt was about. >> this weekend, "in love and capital," the life of karl marx and his wife and the revolution that changed the world.

also, the military and political career of the former israeli prime minister ariel sharon and live sunday, three hours with ben masrecht. his latest follows a book on stolen moon rocks. find a complete schedule online @ book-tv.org. >> i think reading the right books is usually helpful by reading a wrong book can be an education as well like seeing a bad movie. >> "cleopatra" author has advice for would-be authors. she spent time as an editor at simon and schuster. >> editors are very desperate for a new book to publish an exciting new author. there should be hope for what is yet to be done. >> more on sunday night on "q

&a." >> every weekend, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, white house curator william allman on decorative find out rarely -- fine arts rarely seen outside the white house. and from the civil war, an author on historical fiction. from the film vault, the goldwater for president committee follows barry goldwater as the five-term senator campaigns in new hampshire in 1964. look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues -- host: uri dadush from the carnegie endowment for international peace.

the headlines coming out of the geodesic 20 specifically dealt with countries and "the wall street journal" talked about greece as well as " the new york times." what would you say is the message that came out of the g- 20 particularly for those watching in the u.s.? guest: unfortunately, the g-20 meeting was somewhat disappointing overall. not much got done that is that was really concrete. the greek situation and the italian situation is essentially a high-tech to the meeting. a lot of the focus of the leaders was in trying to put out that fire. there were not significant commitments made.

president sarkozy called president hu jin tao of china on thursday to ask him to put some significant amount of cash into the european rescue fund. the chinese demurred as did all other countries and the united states gave a clear signal that they did not want to see an expansion and could not contribute and could not see an expansion of the international monetary fund to support the euro zone. an important part of the reasoning and understandably is that leaders felt that the europeans themselves were divided among themselves. why should they take the rest? going forward, is the euro zone, is it toward

propping up stability? guest: i am not willing to say that we have embarked on a process of stability. today, the bureau's own is in greater trouble than it has ever been since the crisis erupted over two years ago. the reason is that they are at the center of the storm. it is it the late -- it is italy which is a member of the g-age group of countries, this is an enormous economy with a very large public debt. it is now facing interest rates on its new borrowing of 6.4%. to put that in perspective on 10-year bonds, that is about three times what the united states is paying on interest on

its new borrowing. the united states, many people think, will also have a borrowing problem. at some problem . . point./ the italian debt level is about twice as big as the whole of the subprime sector in the united states. a sovereign debt crisis in italy would undoubtedly have not just european but also host: global: l repercussions. host: president obama talk about this action plan. here is a little bit from president obama yesterday speaking about the plan. >> an important step forward,

countries with large surpluses and export-oriented countries agreed to take additional steps to support growth and boost demand in their own countries. in addition, we welcome chinese determination to increase flexibility of the remembi. this will be a critical step in boosting growth. we also made progress across a range of challenges to our shared prosperity. following our reforms in the united states, the g-20 adopted an unprecedented set of high- level financial reforms to prevent a crisis in the future. host: he first called on countries with large surpluses as far as growth demand is concerned. is that china and russia? guest: it is mainly china and germany. what the leaders agreed to is that these countries would

allow what is called the automatic stabilizer to work which means if their economies slow down, the unemployment benefits, for example, would go up. they will not try to claw back by reducing spending in other areas. that is how automatic stabilizers work. unfortunately, that does not add up to much. in the end, you would expect countries to allow automatic stabilizers to work in normal circumstances. i would say it is only a very modest concession on the part of the surplus countries. host: what is the remembi in china? >> the wording of the communique on exchange-rate flexibility,

there are two dimensions to that. it is a code for allowing the rmb, the chinese currency, to rise. china is recognizing the importance of that probably more explicitly than in the past for the other element is indeed to make the rmb more flexible which means it will be allowed to be more freely traded. china will intervene less in the currency market and that is important in the long term to reduce currency tensions around the world. today's international monetary system is predominantly a system of flexible exchange rates or exchange rates can move quite freely in most countries and china is a big exception. that is a huge source of tension. china is recognizing that and saying that we will do the

reforms overtime to make sure we also moved to exchange rate flexibility. host: uri dadush joins us to talk about the action plan that came out of the g-20. if you want to ask him questions, you can call us -- journal@cspan.org is how you can in malice or you can twitter us. first call is from our republican line in new york. caller: perhaps you can and foremost -- i saw a news flash that nicolas sarkozy has asked president obama for help. there were no details of if you can expand on that -- what would happen if greece did go bankrupt?

what would happen to their interest rates, payments, to the life of the basic great citizen? -- greek citizen. guest: i would not be surprised if president sarkozy and other europeans asked president obama as well as others for support. the europeans need help at this point. the size of the sovereign debt crisis is huge compared to the subprime crisis and compared to the size of the help the economies of europe, germany, france, in relative terms. it is quite possible that if the crisis gets worse and italy

becomes fully enveloped by it that the europeans will make much greater support from the international monetary fund, for example. in that case, the position of the americans will be absolutely crucial. will be americans support an expansion of imf resources? they certainly were not ready to do that, but they did leave the door open if things should get worse to consider that. there is the working party of ministers that is going to look at options in the course of the next three-to-four months. the europeans may need that help. if greece goes into formal default, bear in mind that for all intents and purposes greece

has defaulted. the agreement in brussels last week with the banks that they should take a 50% haircut is a default by greece in all but name. there is a big difference between an orderly default of the kind we are having at the moment, where, essentially, the governments of the eurozone are putting greece on a life- support system, and they are providing the financing to keep the greek government going, and one where they say if they go ahead with the referendum, and had they come back and say we do not accept the deal, then you have a disorderly default in which case all the life-support system for greece is cut off.

the greek government does not have the euros to cover its ventures, paid employees, etc. and you have a massive financial crisis in greece, and the deepening of the very deep recession they are already into at the moment. i believe almost inevitable if -- inevitably, as the government runs out of euros, they will introduce their own currency again, which will be heavily devalued, which they will use to pay government employees and keep the greek economy going. so, it will be a disaster. host: columbus, ohio. independent line. caller: as regards to italy, who

are the actual holders of the italian sovereign debt? can you cite a public source that would indicate who those holders are, and given the current state of interest rates on their bonds, what do you perceive as their probability of going into default, orderly or otherwise? thank you. guest: ok. very often you do not have direct knowledge of who is holding these bonds. one way to think about it is they can be held by individuals anywhere around the world. however, there are sources that estimate roughly by country and by type of credit who is out there. so, what we do know is that a

large part of the italian government bonds are held by italians themselves, but there is a large chunk held outside of the country. i do not remember the exact number, but it is in the many hundreds of billions of euros that are held by investors overseas. furthermore, we know what the banking exposures to italy are because the bank of international sentiment has statistics on what is on the balance sheet of the banks are around the world, essentially. countries that are bis members. again, a large part of this debt is owned by international banks

and of italian banks -- the big italian banks -- also have a large amount of this debt. as it turns out, american banking institutions have relatively limited direct exposure to italy, which does not mean they're not exposed because there are many indirect ways these banks are linked through credit default swaps and relationships with other banks. now, in terms of -- i think your other question was the probability of default, orderly or otherwise in italy. ok. right now, the probability is low for one simple reason. that is the european central bank is basically propping up

italian debt. so, the european central bank is essentially by in the amount of italian debt that is -- buying the amount of the italian debt that is needed. the european central bank is kind of on a limited ability to print money, just like the federal reserve bank does in the united states if it wanted to, and to buy government bonds. but, everyone understands that this is not a sustainable, long- term solution. at least most people understand. the german taxpayer and the german representatives at the european central bank are especially opposed because they

see it as a d-day scene of the currency -- a debasing of the currency, which supports what they believe to be a profligate government in the periphery of europe. in fact, two board members have resigned from the european central bank in protest against these bond purchases. if this goes on much longer and the european central bank keeps accumulating these italian bonds, it is inflationary, and people are correct in saying that if the european central bank just goes and purchases these italian bonds, that

reduces all incentives on the italian government to undertake the reforms that are needed in order to get its house in order. so, the likelihood of default immediately is quite low, but over time, frankly, it is anybody's? on how -- anybody's guess on how this plays out, because i would not rule out a major political crisis that basically prevents the ecb from playing this role of a safety valve, so to speak, and there would be an enormous problem. italy would default, or go in that direction, and then we would have, without a doubt, as

i said in the beginning, the makings of a global financial crisis. host: david, independent line, south carolina. good morning. caller: i wanted to ask the gentleman what makes him think that china will cooperate in the future? china is responsible for the manipulation of currency, and the loss of jobs in the united states. the behavior that allows them to steal american trade secrets, and all sorts of actions that would be illegal in the western world or the united states. at the same time, of restricting trade, what makes him think that china has any intention of cooperating? china has been winning this battle, this war. the west has been timid, are

refusing to stand up to china, refusing to insist that china allows its currency to trade just as the united states dollar trades. this business of treating china as some kind of special case underlies the entire problem. guest: well, the gentleman certainly has eight. . -- has a point. china has been a tremendous source of new competition on a global markets. you only have to look at the speed by which its exports have penetrated world markets. today it is the largest exporter in the world.

the caller also has a point that the chinese currency is undervalued because china has systematically intervened to keep the currency from appreciating, and in the process has built up a very large reserves, the largest in the world -- built up very large reserves, the largest in the world. i think the picture the caller painted for china is too negative. even though china is the fastest-growing export market in the world, it has always -- also been the fastest-growing import market in the world. health, china's imports

prop up the global economy during the crisis in 2009. china has been moving in the right direction. the surplus which at one point was eight or nine percentage points of gdp has come down a lot and is now in their region of 3% to 4% of gdp, which is not an unusual number in the world. many countries have much bigger current account surpluses, including, for example, germany, which is the world's third or fourth largest economy. japan also has a current account surplus that is significant. china has been moving in the right direction by allowing its currency to appreciate, although

they have done so gradually. hear, the headline number, which is the 6% appreciation, it is not -- it does not describe what is going on. it is not unusual to have seen rates increased 10%, 50%, and in some cases 20% -- 15%, and in some cases 20% over the last year or so. more and more new investment at the margin is going to other poor countries. the last thing i want to say is by and large, china does not

actually compete with the united states directly in terms of exports and imports. united states incomes and wages are a bout 8 times what they are in china. the same thing applies to europe and japan. these countries cannot compete in stitching t-shirts or making shoes. so countries like debt united states and japan are much more specialized and highly technical products, or in some

cases natural resources. china opposed the concentration ight now is very -- china's concentration is in low-and into manufacturing. host: we have a viewer? guest: that is a fundamental question about the viability of the european monetary union. in fact, as the caller is implying, one of the big problems is that one size does not fit all. so, european monetary policy over the last 10 years, up until the time the sovereign debt crisis erupted two years ago was

almost certainly too loose for countries like spain and ireland, which were booming and too tight for a country like germany which was going much more slowly. that is why these disparities became so pronounced. moreover, the european central bank has to do these jobs while the institutional underpinnings of the european monetary union are actually quite inadequate. what do i mean by that? in order for a monetary union to function properly -- look at the case of the united states -- there are a couple of conditions that economists have underlined, both of which are missing in europe. one is very flexible labor

markets and mobility. so, if the situation in detroit -- if demand in detroit is very weak but demand in washington is high, people can move easily from detroit to washington. that is much more difficult to do in europe because of -- the in labor markets -- -- labor markets. battalions did not pick up and move to germany. they like to be where there are, in their culture, speaking their language. that is one issue. the other issue, the other institution of deficit of hear about is they do not have a strong -- deficit in europe is they do not have a strong

federal government which is a large part of the costs. of course that exists in the united states. this means that when different parts of the continent are moving at different speeds, there is much less opportunity for the central government budget to compensate. for example, a common a unemployment insurance -- , and unemployment insurance, in different parts of europe. the european central bank has a tough job. host: the european monetary bank should be able to print money and have more control over the euro -- a follow-up question.

guest: the ecb effectively can't print money and have control over the heat -- can print money and have control over the euro. it does not have control over the fiscal policies of the independent governments. those should be governed by a much tougher, more demanding discipline mechanism that it is at the moment. as i said before, it is important to have a large central pool of money as it is in the united states in order to compensate for the business cycle. host: baltimore, maryland. paul, republican line. good morning. caller: what i want to know is

what were the greek people buying when they created all of this debt? guest: so, the greek-increase in the course of the last -- debt increase in the course of the last 10 years is partly a reflection of the fact that the greek economy became very biased, so to speak, or unbalanced. it was towards consumption, towards services, and towards government spending. it was at the expense of the big export sectors, or import- competing sectors.

a lot of investments went into what become all -- economists call the non- tradable part of the economy, services, by and large, etc. the reason this happened is when greece joined the euro, something similar happened in spain and ireland, the interest rates came down because they were borrowing in euros and the government's assessed but if you were part in the -- of the eurozone -- if you were part of the eurozone 8 did not matter who you were lending to. -- it did not matter who you were lending to. the problem with this, of course, is these kinds of

activities, construction, consumption, services, are not capable of generating revenues in the long term so that greece can repay debt in heroes. host: miami, florida. thank you for waiting. jordan, independent line. caller: i am a small businessman, and i have maybe a stupid solution but i would like to hear mr. dadush's opinion. if i have a problem in my business i go to my bank, and say i owe you some much money, i would like you to take a house, and i paid the interest for the time being.

mostly, it works out, and when my business picks up, i keep paying them back, and i do that for 40 years ago. a few moments ago mr. dadush answered to the question to home we all the money -- to whom we all the money, -- owe the money, can we approach these people and make them this offer? can you take a holiday, and we pay you? who are these people? if i were given a telephone number and name, i would call them myself and make this proposition which i would make him i think.

guest: actually, something like this has already been agreed for greece. the creditors of greece, as i said before, are all over the world. nobody knows exactly who they are, where they are. we have a rough knowledge. we know that a large part of the greek- isowed outside of -- is owed outside of an greece, and that is a big difference with italy. when the european union and the imf began their program in greece, that is exactly what they did. they basically said we understand you cannot repay your debts now, so what we are going

to do is we are going to look at your total financing requirement for the next three years. ok? in other words, all of the new debt that is coming due, how much you will need to borrow to repay that debt, and the , and we that you owe are going to cover that for the next three years by providing you a special loan that is done by the governments of the european union and the international monetary fund, so you do not have to go back to the market, which a special loan will need to be paid later on at different maturities beyond

that. so, that is what we have done, but then the european union and the international monetary fund says however, as we do that, you have to abide by certain conditions, just as you have your covenants when the bank lends you money, and these conditions to imply that the government is going to have to shrink, -- conditions implied that the government is going to have to shrink, you are going to improve your business in a long- term sense. the greek crisis keeps coming back in part because greece has not been able to fulfil these requirements. there are good reasons for it. some of it has to do with they are not trying enough, some

might have to do that the global economy -- to do with the government -- the global economy deteriorating, and as the government shrinks, that reduces tax revenue. that is an issue about how the program is best designed. essentially, something like what your bank has done with you a number of times over the last 40 years is happening in greece at the moment. host: how much does the u.s. fund the imf? guest: the u.s. owns, if i remember correctly, somewhere between 17% and 18%. host: the idea of going to the imf or some other lender, what is the u.s. position on been ok with that strategy? guest: there are two positions.

one is to increase the shareholders' interest in the imf. in that case, if the united states wants to keep its current ownership, which gives it voting rights, they would have to pay in 17% or 18% of any imf expansion that happens. another way that is currently been discussed is that some governments the have this tractions to lend money -- restrictions to lend money, in which case under that arrangement there is no change in the ownership share of the imf, but undoubtedly, the countries i have the surplus reserves will insist on some change.

host:. the dish is with the carnegie endowment for international -- uri dadush is with the carnegie endowment for international peace. we're a few more minutes with our guest. you can see on the front page the g-20 meeting is one of the topics they currently deal with. orlando, florida, on the republican line. caller: the u.s. contribution to the imf is 18%? something along those lines? guest: something along those lines. caller: the issue is when we examine the consequences of living on a currency that has been dealing from a metallica equivalent such as gold or silver, they absence of that stability has created the

situation. what i think is happening is the person that is living day-to-day in america will see their standard of living go down dramatically as a result of the inflation created by the printing of so much money. when we hear about the ims billing out other countries, i think it will -- ims bailing out other countries, i think it will transfer -- imf bailing out other countries, i think it will lead to a lower standard of living for americans. guest: the imf will only intervene under certain circumstances. they are a lender of last resort. my view is that when an important country, a country of systemic significance is threatened by default, the imf

or a lender of last resort does not intervene, that could make things all lot worse. -- a lot worse. of course, there are diverse opinions on whether the united states should have enacted its start program, but i for one believe that program was a important in avoiding the united states falling into another great depression. in hindsight, we can also see that the tarp program actually cost very little, and actually made a little bit of money. not only did it play an important stabilizing role, it got its money back, and made a

little bit of spare change. the international monetary fund, interestingly, has a long history of interventions, and essentially has always gotten its money back. there might be one or two small exceptions, but by and large, the international monetary fund gets its money back. it lends under very tight conditions, and it also lends as a senior creditor, which means it takes priority over anybody else. so, if, indeed the united states was in a position where they decided they needed to increase imf resources they would do so against a historical track record, were they have never lost money. host: what does this say about the future of the use of the

euro? with still be the main currency for the eu. -- eu? guest: i hope so. the consequences would be dire. we would have an enormous crisis if the eurozone broke up. more to the point, the commitment to the euro, both at the core and in the periphery, and you saw an example of that in the last week -- mr. papandreou, the prime minister of greece said we would have a referendum, and that will be also on whether we should stay on the euro. the reaction in the political body of greece was so violent that the prime minister had to reverse himself the next day

because the policy, including the wider electorate in greece basically believed it is very important for them to stay in the eurozone. this is a country that is suffering a terrible recession. do not underestimate the will of the average european to keep this progress on the road. host: uri dadush is with the carnegie endowment. thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much. host: in our last segment we will look at efforts to reduce the federal workforce, but coming up next, james o'keefe, filmmaker.

>> when i got into public, and started selling my books, every person i worked with i had a rejection from. >> in his nonfiction, ben mezrich examines successful people. his latest "sex on the most vocal tracks a -- moon" tracks an astronaut. >> i want you all to know, those

of you wanted me to run so badly, and those of you who are so terribly disappointed, that i am doing the right thing. >> 1984 finds the united states in the strongest position in years. >> with every program since 1987, the c-span video library is a definitive source for online public affairs. there is now a new way to access our programming. download audio for 99 cents each. take c-span with here. listen to what you want, when you want, where you want. >> obviously reading the right books is usually helpful, but reading the wrong books can be an education as well. it is like seeing a bad movie, seeing what is done wrong.

>> stacy schiff has won a pulitzer prize. >> i think every young writer should remember that publishers are desperate for an exciting new offer to publish. there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> more with stacy schiff sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: james o'keefe put the most recognizable -- james o'keefe put the most recognizable work came with undercover work. >> what they encourage a prostitute? >> a child sex credit? >> would they give her guidance on how not to get busted on the

-- by the federal government? >> with they differ street topics for not getting in trouble with her pimp? >> yes, yes, and yes. host: james o'keefe joins us now. also the president of project veritas. how would you describe what you do? guest: we do that with undercover video. host: why undercover? guest: we think support -- suspects will be more honest with us. we go into organizations were people do not have an expectation of privacy. host: do you see what your --

yourself as a reporter? guest: reporters have done it before. we are going after public officials. the think it is in a strain of a long history of journalism. host: as far as your style is concerned, how would you describe how you use the pieces of video you do? guest: we are trying to make creative, splashy. it is for the internet and social media. we use caution and music. because technology has evolved the way it has, it is typically something but reporters have only been able to do, but now anyone can upload a video as long as you have great content. that allows for us to get our foot in the door. host: who makes editorial decisions?

guest: we have a small team. host: how many? guest: we have many more than dozens of guerrilla journalists of citizens fed actually go undercover, the we have a small group of people that make the decisions on who to invest it. we get a lot of tips. we have a small, cohesive team that puts together these productions. host: so when you put together a production, who makes the final decision? guest: it is usually me. host: what is your philosophy, and how to institute fairness? guest: one of the things we do that no other news organization that i know of does is we release the full ,uncut tapes. "the new york times" -- a

pulitzer prize winner from the paper went through our videos and deduced that nothing was taken out of context. we typically include more than most journalists ever do. host: so you have done videos on a corn, you did a video on npr, which the result was? guest: a resignation. host: you did a video on occupy wall street? guest: it was sort of cartoonish. i have a gordon gekko costume and they were asking me to film -- to invest in them. also, we were investigating the journalists, professors of journalism. this resulted in a professor at

nyu sending us a profanity-laced e-mail. the professor who i believe is a consultant for "the new york times" talked about the strategy to help occupy wall street. host: "the new york times" has said he is not a consultant? guest: that is correct. we released a tape that said he has a consulting gig. we're trying to follow up to see who is lying. host: would you go beyond the one professor saying that as far as sources are concerned or would you just go with that one source? guest: we have a source. for example, cnn had a show where they said o'keefe makes

erroneous claim. the claim was not made by me. the claim was made by a professor that has a relationship. i have a source that is making the claim. no one reached out to me for comment. a typical thread is a willingness to cover up what we expose, to call me a liar, and that is why we released evidence a little bit at the time, in order to not only expose the subject, but the media willingness to do damage control. host: you can call in for james o'keefe . you can send us an e-mail or a

tweet. who finances you? guest: we do not have any major donors. we have small builders active as 100, thousand dollars checks. we are completely grass roots. it is unique. a non-profit and journalistic entity -- there are only a few of them. it allows me independent. host: project veritas, what is that? guest: project veritas it is our 501c3 non-profit organization. you can make donations to our web site. it is tax deductible. we are a loose knit group of citizens and guerrilla journalists who are going

undercover and creating video expos days, putting them on youtube, into organizations like npr and acorn. host: our first call is saint louis, missouri, sandra, and our democrats line for james o'keefe. go ahead. caller: my question would be is this considered deception, invasion of privacy -- how can you do what you are doing and actually get away with what you are doing? guest: we typically investigate where there is no expectation of privacy. government offices are funded with public money. to give you an idea, abc news used to when journalism awards

for investigating the lives of private citizens in a show called "what would you do?" major tv outlets used to use hidden cameras with private citizens. if it is ethical for them to do that against private citizens, it is perfectly ethical for us to do it against public figures like npr or groups with ties to the white house. i think it is perfectly ethical. host: that extends to a law professor's office? guest: journalism professors did not receive public money but my argument it is if you look at the video we created "to catch a journalist part one," you will see that these aren't journalism

schools. they said reporters to call the wall street journal," da huffington post -- "the huffington post." host: what was the point of talking to him in the first place? guest: we didn't expose it. we expose -- exposed -- we did an expos 8. we dug deeper to find out who is this guy, we went to columbia, and we said is this something the public needs to know about? you can watch the tape. he denies getting sources drunk. i think we need to inform the public about our journalists and white house correspondents. host: one source that follows your work says there is a

difference between what the professor said and what you actually said? guest: there was controversy. i asked if he got his sources drunk. i was interpreting what the professor told me. i asked a question. i would say that journalists always interpret large amounts of information and ask people for comment. did not read transcripts. host: amarillo, texas. ., republican and wine. caller: what ever became of the acron investigation and those two black ladies but wanted to help you find prostitution?

guest: a few days into the release, the census cut ties, the senate and house voted to defund acorn, so they lost federal funding. i know they have certain subgroups, and they are reorganizing. there is a group in new york called the believe it is called new york canaries for change. in philadelphia, i think it is called action united. a lot of the same people are reorganizing under different names. my view is that i do not want to destroy them. that was not my mission. if there is fraud there, it should be reformed. our mission is to expose organizations for what they are. i think hour documentary showed

a willingness to engage in an unethical, corrupt practices. i think registering people to vote is a good mission. host: pete, texas. caller: you have hit a good gimmick. that is how you go far in life. i would encourage you to do investigative reporting on americans for prosperity, or some conservative groups who actually control money and actually do fraud that effect millions of people instead of going for folks that do not have anything. thank you. guest: well, we have gone after publicly-funded, taxpayer, in most cases federal-funded organizations, which, frankly, are very influential. i have just got started. i have been doing this for

about two years in a major way. you will see us go after financial institutions, politicians. i think publicly-funded media entities, and people who influence the election process, politicians, medicaid in tenements, professors, -- entitlements, professors, these are all things the need to be investigated. nobody is doing it. a lot of journalists have investigated the koch brothers, but there seems to be a huge gap. denny's to be more accountability. -- there needs to be more accountability. journalists are not willing to do it, maybe because they have sources or friends in the beltway, but we are sort of outsiders, so we are able to make these risky epose.

host: if you enter government offices to legally come up why should get non-profit status to break the law? guest: i walked into a federal building using a different name. i use my real driver's license when i walked in, and journalists were quick to condemn me, but i entered the building using my real driver's license. i was only inside of the office before i began to identify myself as something i was not. i would ask my critics and journalistic critics if they think it is ok to prosecute someone for being inside of a politician's office and say i was waiting for someone, when i was not. that was my false pretense. i told the senator staffer i was waiting for somebody. for that, i was given a

misdemeanor, community service, and probation. i would assume my critics what actually ask the question is it immoral, and we want to prosecute people for being in an office next i it -- in an office? i'm surprised by critics on the left are attacking it. host: did phone tampering come up? guest: i was cleared of all charges. host: laurel, maryland. good morning. go ahead. caller: all due respect, sir. i've seen in many times on fox news, how come you did not go after the big man there, and expose him? guest: who are we talking about -- the big man? caller: he has been over there

in england, and what have you, all the controversy there. i've seen you go after people on the left, never anyone on the right. host: you are speaking about rupert murdoch? caller: of course. guest: we have gone after organizations we believe mainstream journalists refused to investigate. there were hundreds of reporters tried to get to the bottom of that story. there are no reporters digging into acorn. no one would touch npr. these are the sacred cows. we found npr was willing to solicit money tied to an organization posing as the muslim brotherhood. so, you ask me to investigate organizations that hundreds, if

not thousands of reporters are spending every moment of their life investigating, but no one is willing to investigate the areas where we go after, and that is where my conscious always leads me at project veritas, we choose to investigate organizations that no one else will. as time goes on, i think we will do things that might surprise you. i think you'll be surprised and what we investigate. host: west virginia,. , republican line. -- eric, republican line. caller: i do not care if it is a liberal cause or a conservative cause, i think you are doing a great job. the obama administration is talking about colin around -- about going around to the laws of the states that have to provide a picture id to vote.

when you go around this country, it is imperative the be legal and eligible to vote. if you can go to a college town and get a fake id, and see how many college towns you could vote for the president of the united states under the disguise of a college student, i would guarantee you that you could cast many votes that way. guest: well, there is a lot of voter fraud, and that might be something we choose to investigate as time goes on to host: off of twitter -- guest: deception -- i do not know what that means. "60 minutes" would win journalism awards for doing this activity.

abc used to use child decoys, and people would go to jail for it. these are actors. if it is ethical and award- winning for mainstream journalists to do this, how is it not ethical for citizens? look what happened when the vice president joe biden was confronted. he this is not -- this is not about journalism ethics. people need to realize we are rising to a standard that goes above and beyond the media when we release the full, and cut tapes. host: chicago, ill., and jesse, independent line. caller: i just want to say bravo everything you are doing should be exposed. congratulations. i like it.

guest: thank you. host: how do you determine your topics then, and was a baby -- would they be conceived as topics by conservative folks as yourself? guest: i got my start in college where everyone thought the same thing. it is more of a power struggle. people think it is ideological or political. maybe in some ways it is political in the result of congressional votes to define certain entities, but it is really about exposing something that is the nature of an organization. the essence of npr. when i saw acorn busting down the doors of foreclosed homes illegally, that needs to be exposed. there is a media willingness to cover up for that.

how'd you get around the media? how'd you get the truth out there despite these? as time goes on you will see as investigate a plethora, why- ranging spectrum -- wide- ranging spectrum of non- conservative, not liberal organizations? host: on what topics, specifically? guest: i am concerned about the relationship between big business and big government in this country. i think the occupy wall street crowd is concerned about that, and the tea party, that is something they share in common. that is something that hurts citizens. that is something you could see us look into further. host: potomac, ore., adeline, you are on with james o'keefe. caller: i want to congratulate you on your good work. you fill a void in media, and it

is not surprising they go after you. good luck in the future, and keep on keeping on, because you are doing something than needs to be done and mainstream media is to write up as much as you can. good luck. caller: i was pleasantly surprised to hear you admit that the tea party and occupy wall street have something in common. i have thought that for some time. i think you would get more credibility if you would perhaps go after people on the right as much as you do people on the left. historically speaking, people who go in to the media business tend to lean towards the left anyway and most people will go into banking tend to lean toward the right. that is just natural. you are going against the flow, a conservative being part of the media. there is nothing wrong with it.

any more than a liberal who wants to get into banking. it is rare, but nothing wrong with it. my only advice to you would be be more balanced. that is all i will like to say. guest: i think going after government, generally speaking, entitlements is considered left- wing. i do not know why they are considered left of center. i do not know why occupy wall street, instead of writing and engaging with police officers, why they are not walking into public buildings and asking difficult questions. it is considered conservative to hold government accountable. i think that is a ridiculous premise. we are going to continue investigating government as long as it is legal to do so. it might become illegal to do so, with the amount of heat i got and criticism for walking into a senator's office.

it is incredible. but we will go after people that are non-left. i may not do investigative exposes or might not do them to these ideologically right people, but i will go after people who are -- maybe the financial services, for example, or fraud in corporations. regardless of what their ideological bent is. i do not view this as an ideological struggle, and i think that maybe these ideological interests are dividing the tea party and occupy wall street for party reasons. guest: i would challenge her premise as well. plenty of all award-winning journalist our ideological pacs and have won pulitzer prizes --

plenty of award winning journalists are ideological hacks. all journalists, true investigative journalists, go in with a tip or instincts about what they are investigating. the difference is we are compensating where these reporters do not go, but if you want to attack me for only investigating acorn and npr, have to attack the people at "rolling stone" magazine who would never in their lives investigate the people we go after. host: ohio, nancy, you are up next. caller: the producer at cnn who called to a sexual predator -- she accused you of sexual harassment.

guest: that was a bogus -- she did not make that specific claim, that harassment claim. she was doing a documentary expos on myself and a few others, and one of my e-mails got leaked. cnn was the networker tried to cover up what the acorn employees did. they brought on the guy from the "washington post" who said that it was an isolated incident. those people did not have any facts. the next day, we released the tape in d.c. and in new york. cnn, which had a history of trying to cover up for what i did did an hourlong documentary a year ago on me and a few others and try to say i was going to do this thing that they

got an e-mail from -- well, it was not true. the e-mailed at that -- -- that they retrieved from my e-mail account was a brainstorming document. i was not actually going to do what was in that document. yet another example of cnn trying to target me because they do not like what i do. host: fredericksburg, virginia, cynthia. good morning. republican line. caller: i just want to say i am super impressed by what james has done at such a young age. me being around the same age, i am really proud of him. what other investigative journalists have inspired you through your career? guest: thank you for your question. i would say there are some great journalists. i mentioned a few of them. mike wallace. steve croft just the other day

was asking congress woman pelosi a difficult question. some called it an ambush. that is how far journalism has sunk. abc news has done some undercover work in texas. matt drudge is someone i look up to. he took a lot of power away from newspapers and how they laid out the content. he took something from the back page and put it on the headlines. i learned a lot about the media's willingness to cover up information with these creative publishing tactics to get around it. tim kearney at the "washington examiner" talks about the relationship with lobbying. not all media people are bad. you hear about the yes men, sort

of film making group. they do these sort of skits where they pose as characters and go into conferences and they will go on tv posing as something they are not, and they bring flashy creative effects to journalism or expose documentary filmmaking. i do not see these too ideological and spirit they probably hate me. but these people inspire me. i and my colleagues are able to see them not through an ideological prism but through what they offer. community organizer talked about bringing power to people. we bring power to journalists. host: john is on our independent

line. go ahead. caller: thanks, james, for doing what you do, and thank you, c- span. i would like to see you make time in state houses where we see 4000 or 5000 people show appeared more than half of those people are bused in who are welfare recipients, and they are bused in to these places, and they are not even from the states that they are doing it in. in ohio, you have somebody going up against the governor and the legislature or in wisconsin, and more than half the people that are at these demonstrations are not even part of the state. the main news never covers this. they never say this. they act like it is all affecting these people in the state won more than half the people demonstrating are not even from the state.

anyway, thanks for what you do. guest: a word on the ohio and statewide battles, we recently did do an investigation regarding ohio. it was not busing people in the, it was figuratively busing professors in. a professor at rutgers we caught on tape with our decoyed, calling him, talking about whether he would be willing to kill a study. he said it would kick -- he would kill a steady if it did not reach the conclusion that the ohio education association wanted it to reach. we have exposed willingness from professors in new jersey to help ohio education association, and we confronted this professor, and he denied making that very statement, so we have done things like that. host: 8 your on twitter asked if you were dressed as a pimp in the acorn or was that deceptive

editing? guest: it was a bumper, a trailer. i did not actually get it into the footage -- the costume was a musical introduction that news tv programs use all the time. i did pose as a pimp. the "new york times" said i did after reviewing the footage. i said i wanted to him out girls and profit off of it. protocol does not require the wearing of a pepsi. simply saying, cassette and i want to traffic in underage girls -- simply saying "i want to traffic in underage girls." -- protocol does not require the wearing of a pimp suit. we put together a musical with

music. you are not supposed to do that. it is sacrilegious. we do it because it is youtube and it is a new generation. host: by the same virtue, you invite criticism by doing that. >> of course. people will be critical of our tactics. that is something that most people do not do on news programs, but we are combining a lot of different things in order to create a splashy, explosive documentary film. host: the reporters committee for freedom of the press lays out audio recording laws .

host: do you violate these laws? guest: i would argue there's no expectation of privacy in california and maryland. there were kids in those offices. we tried to avoid those states now because there is a great line. i think a lot of these laws are antiquated. they were invented before the advent of the idea of recording device. nowadays, there's recording devices everywhere. but we tend to -- i have to record when i ask people to comment because people do not believe me when i make a claim. i cannot use anonymous sources and make whatever claims i would like. people demand from the full video -- audio/video to accompany every claim in may, so

we have to record in our investigations what people tell us. i could tomorrow go into these offices and write down what the people tell me, but the viewership and my critics would not believe a single thing i said. host: va, you are up next. randy, republican line. caller: thank you so much for your efforts. it is often that it works statewide here in virginia, and i owned a small business that tries to work with in school divisions, and what i find is massive resistance to my private business trying to integrate seamlessly with schools. what i am finding is how the industrial not-for-profit community -- and this is al a local level -- as well as the other strong advertisers like hospitals, law offices, and the

larger community groups -- the owners, we like to call them around here -- keep information unfettered from reaching our local community. i find reporters really does interested in anybody who is not part of the kabal. you only get a sympathetic response to some of these challenges we have locally to those who are not doing what we expect them to do, whether it be the local community board of supervisors or the local head foundation. we rarely get the whole story. guest: reporters oftentimes have stories within the organizations they cover like in new jersey when we did the njea investigation. we found a lot of reporters

would not investigate them because that is what their sources are big, so they will not burn that bridge. >> new haven, connecticut, you are on. >> -- caller: good morning. question -- how are you different from michael more? also, i would like to see some balance to your reporting, but keep up the good work. guest: thank you. michael moran is an editorialist. there are a couple of good films -- i like "roger and me." for the most part, he does not really expose groundbreaking or explosive facts. he just sort of commons. his work is more of a commentary, which is fine. there are a lot of pundits and a lot of needs for interpreting facts and commenting on them, but our work tends to be -- you discover the essence, these

hidden truths about organizations, and it is more fact finding and commentary. host: if you are interested in the work of michael moore, he did a three-hour interview with us. you can find that if you go to our video library. you can see that conversation took place last month, i believe. one more call for our guest from mississippi on our independent line. renee, go ahead. caller: this guy is not a journalist. he edits his recordings to make it appear they are saying something they are not. that happened with the guy from npr. he was quoting somebody. he did not say that. same thing with usda. they had her saying she made a racist decision regarding a

white farmer, and it turned out they had edited highly and excluded that she was saying she would not do that. these are the same people who do that. i have to ask you -- when are you going to have someone from the media watchdog group fairness and accuracy do the reporting to rebut some of the things he is saying? you have gone totally to the right. you have people from heritage, american enterprise, all these other right-wing organizations on your show constantly. host: on sunday we had a representative from "the nation." just for some context, but thank you for your suggestion. guest: you do not have to take my word for it. a reporter at the "new york times" review the full lot of acorn and found nothing was

taken out of context. john stuart act "the daily show" review the whole thing and love it -- jon stewart. it was mostly democrats who defunded acorn. president obama said the behavior was deplorable. attorney general's in ohio and virginia investigating medicaid fraud after our video showing employees talking about ways that they can get around -- calling babysitting, russian drug dealers, getting medicaid assistance. you do not have to take my word for it. attorney general's, congress, president obama, "new york times," all these organizations get behind it. projectveritas.com.

how often host: do you update? >> nowadays more often. -- host: how often do you update? guest: nowadays more often. host: we will have -- we will have a conversation about reducing the federal work force when we return. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i think reading the right books is helpful, but reading the wrong books can be educational as well like sea and the wrong movie. it is good to see what was done wrong so you can avoid those faults yourself. >> "cleopatra" author has advice.

>> every young writer should remember that publishers are desperate for a good new book published or a good officer to publish. there should be enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> more sunday night on c-span "q&a." >> you cannot understand where the ideas came from unless you knew what was happening around him and his line that so many people take offense from the line of religion is the opium of the people, but unless you know that king's said they were the emissaries of god, you would not understand what his revolt was about. >> this weekend, mary gabriel looks at the life of karl marx, his wife, and a revolution that changed the world. also, the military and political career of ariel sharon.

and the author of "accidental " and his latest project. every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, william allman 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. he has written a book of prequels and sequels to his novel. and from the film vault, the goldwater for president committee follows barry goldwater in 1964. look for the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history.

"washington journal" continues. host: a house panel met this week and the main topic of discussion was the reduction of the federal work force. what was the context of the discussion? >> that is right. -- guest: that is right. house committee approved a bill offered by republican to reduce the federal work force by about 10% over three years. it basically means that when two or three federal workers leave, they would only replace those jobs with one worker. there would not be layoffs, but they would just have less of a staff. host: what was the idea behind only one worker for every two or three that go? guest: the idea was to basically cut costs and shrink the federal work force. there are folks on both sides of the aisle that believe the

federal work force has gotten too big and as part of deficit reduction, it would be good to reduce some of the roles. host: is there any other effort either on capitol hill or within the work of the deficit reduction committed to talk about the reduction of federal workers? guest: yes, there is. presidential nominee mitt romney has mentioned that is something he would want to do if elected. there are other proposals under consideration by the super committee, in addition to many other efforts to reduce paying benefits of federal workers. host: we have some statistics. roughly 4 million federal workers according to the office of personnel management -- could you give a sense of what these workers do? guest: it varies. federal civilian work force is about 2.7 million, excluding postal workers and temporary workers, seasonal workers. the bulk of the work force is

professional, white-collar. they do many professional administrative duties. you have a lot of specialized jobs. contract management, human resource specialist, budget analyst, tax examiners, food inspectors, people who provide social security benefits and veteran benefits, so it really runs across the board. host: does that number include contractors? guest: it does not include contractors. the work force is separate and ideas about 10 million people. it is a sizable amount people. host: and other resources 85% of these federal employees work outside of washington, d.c. >> -- guest: that is right, and that is something a lot of people do not realize. that sort of speaks a little bit to the debate that is going on. one of the debates across the

country within congress is whether federal workers are overcompensated as it relates to their counterparts in the private sector. when you look at certain areas like washington, salaries tend to be higher than they do out in the rest of the country, but the work of the -- the bulk of the federal work force does work in the rest of the country. host: if a person does the same job in government or out, would they make the same type of salary or with the government worker make more? guest: it varies. the compensation debate is not an exact science. it depends on various factors including education, experience, at age. a lawyer, who works, say, at the irs, a tax attorney will not make the same compensation as someone who works in the private sector. oftentimes, in the private sector will make more money than that person in the federal government, but as far as their jobs are concerned, there are some that make a little more, it

depends on what the actual job is. host: $2.7 million in the executive branch according to the office of personnel management. about $64,000 in legislative and the judicial branch. those numbers in context? guest: like i said, the bulk of the work force are career civil servants. they are the ones that do not leave the administration when different political, in theory that is why you do not see as much turnover in the workforce. they are the ones that have the institutional knowledge. and have been there for a while and really do the bulk of the work. host: our guest, talking about issues when it comes to the reduction of the federal workforce and the size of the federal work force. if you want to ask questions, we have four lines set aside this morning.

we have set aside a special line this morning for those of you who are workers for the federal government and want to get your perspective on what is going on here, especially reduction of the workforce. if you want to give us your story, 202-628-0184. you can also send an e-mail and off of twitter. give us a sense of the average length a person has been there, what kind of qualifications they bring to the table, essentially, how they get hired for these positions. guest: the average federal worker is about 46 years old. many of them have been in government for a while. part of the draw of being in the

federal work force is that with seniority, you move up the pay scale and developed a specialized area of knowledge that is beneficial as far as compensation, as far as if you want to go to, say, different agencies. you can bring that skill set with you. folks in the federal work force do tend to be educated. they tend to have more experience and can do have specialized areas of knowledge, whether it is immigration or border patrol or budget or contract management. you do tend to see people who enter the federal work force stay for a decent amount of time. host: 1 perspective of being on capitol hill, for federal workers, how do they react to the idea of a reduction taking place not only on capitol hill, but on the presidential trail? guest: unsurprisingly, not very well. some folks believe there is a

little bit of bloat there that could be trimmed back a little bit, but overall, a lot of the proposals, such as reducing federal work force, have not sat well with federal employees because they feel as though they are being targeted in the name of deficit reduction, fairly or unfairly, but they are not always valued for the work they do by congress and, to a lesser debate, the public. host: our first call is on our line for federal workers. chris, good morning. caller: good morning. your guest mentioned a certain percentage of workers inside the beltway and in some maryland, virginia, west virginia. there is a substantial number of federal workers in the greater washington area. could you please clarify what percentage is maryland, virginia, west virginia versus

further away? guest: the 15% comprises the metro washington area. many federal workers live and reside in the district as well as northern virginia and suburban maryland. there is a smaller group in west virginia, but the bulk is in and around the district. caller: i was wondering when you were talking about the compensation being higher in the private sector for particular jobs if you were taking the compensation packages into consideration that the federal workers receive and their benefits and retirement packages. i will take my answer off the air. guest: yes, that is certainly the way it is looked at. there's basic salary, and that includes basic salary with locality pay for federal

workers, and then there is the overall compensation packages, which comprises health care benefits, retirement benefits, and there is a school of thought that the compensation package overall for federal workers is much more generous than certain jobs in the private sector. again, it is an imperfect science. it is a little but apples to oranges because no job in the federal government is an exact replica of a job in the private sector, so it really does depend on the specifics of the particular position you are talking about. host: when it comes to pay, they have grades and steps. guest: most people in the federal government have a system comprised of 15 grades, which are linked to a specific case scale. if you are gs-12 step 1, you

make a specific type of salary. that is pretty, you know -- it changes based on different things every year, but it is pretty much a rigid schedule, to some degree. people, federal work force do not exactly have the opportunity for bonuses the way people in the private sector do, so you are locked in a little bit to that pay scale depending on your great and your step within it. host: if you go up to step in, the most to could make a $70,000, so to make more, it would have to go up a great. guest: correct, and that could be difficult, depending on the work you do, depending on the budget the agency has, whether they have the money to pump you up to the next great -- grade. host: rockville, maryland, go

ahead. caller: i just wanted to ask a question. we are looking at cutting the federal work force, but over the last 30 years, hedge fund managers and other folks seem to be making a way like bandits. is there any type of balancing and looking at how much financial services folks make and have made over the public sector folks who support a lot of our agencies, support our defense, and really do the day- to-day work that helps keep our society running? guest: the -- the college is an interesting point that is really central to the debate.

a lot of the work that they do it is essential and is essential for the public. you are administering benefits, protecting borders, and that is why they feel in some instances a scapegoat in terms of this deficit reduction debate. you have folks who may make a pretty good living depending on how you factor in the compensation, but they are by no means living extravagantly for the most part. you take the other extreme with folks in the financial-services industry who might make more money and have a pretty good bonus situation, and there is that disconnect as far as how federal workers feel they are valued in this society. host: someone on twitter asks us --

guest: if you talk to some people, any reduction is a reduction, and that is good as far as spending is concerned, but you have to look at the fact that if you do reduce positions in certain agencies, when you have less staff, that is less staff to carry out the jobs. with respect to those agencies, they have to get benefit checks out the door. if you have less people, then those checks might not come out in a timely fashion. host: utah, thanks for waiting, republican line. caller: i was days away from being hired at an air force base here and a little bit under office personnel management from my background, but i have already been through the hiring process, other than

basically being given a fingerprint and whenever the rest of the necessary means were in order to be hired. yesterday, i received an e-mail saying that my name has already been taken off the list for consideration. i would like to know, where will i stand at this point? am i completely done? does anybody know? where do we stand now? are we done? will those odd jobs be completely abolished? we are not going to get much from the personnel people because they are knocked -- they are not really going to know. guest: one of the issues at the office of personnel management -- they oversee hiring of personnel management for federal workers -- in the last few years, they have tried to

institute a hiring form to streamline the process to make it easier for people to apply to cut down on the time it takes from applying to talking to someone about the job of getting the job. they have also tried to fix the security clearance, background checks system. they have made some improvements. it used to be a lot worse, there are still real witches in the system appeared part of that as there are just a lot more hoops you have to jump through as far as getting hired into the government then you do, say, getting hired by private firms. host: joe says this -- i only read that to read from a report that says this -- guest: it is difficult in many

respects to get fired from the government. there are things you can do other than murder to get fired, but it is a little bit more difficult than, say, being in the private sector. part of that is the government operates on merit systems principles. they strive to be diverse. they strive to get people at all compensation levels, and they do try to get them into training programs, and they really want to keep them there and have them be career folks. the system is set up to retain people because at the end of the day, they want a talented workforce who have experience and has the knowledge to be able to carry out their jobs, but firing is still something that can happen. as far as it relates to the private sector, it is more difficult to get fired from the government. host: we have set aside a line

for federal workers. this one from dallas, texas. good morning. caller: this conversation is really demeaning for federal workers. if you look at what the requirements are, it is usually a master's degree. usually five-plus years of college -- i mean, of experience. it is not easy to get in. i am actually you're working while i look at your show, so i am and earning my pay. to be here that you have been cut 10% -- that puts a lot of pressure on us. -- i am actually here working. in all honesty, i could make twice as much at least if i went into the private sector. one of my issues with having a government job was the stability. host: before you go, what branch

of the government do you work for? caller: i work for cms. i am an accountant. i have been there since 2002. host: thank you. guest: it is true. many federal workers, especially at the higher grades, are very well-educated. they could get jobs in the private sector that would pay more money. the current environment -- it is legitimate to have a debate over whether or not certain pay and benefits have passed their time or require assistance to be modified. that is a legitimate debate, but the issue for the federal work force is there is this environment where they feel they are under attack, that they are being demonized in many ways in the u.s. deficit reduction, and it takes away from having the

legitimate policy debate over whether certain pay and benefit structures should be changed. host: detroit, michigan, thanks for holding on. caller: thanks for taking my call. we are so concerned today about deficit reduction and salaries and individuals taking cuts. what i wanted to know is why is it that our representatives in washington have not offered costs for their salaries and their benefits? they are only in washington maybe six months out of the year. they never fought in a full eight-hour day. why are we paying the $175,000 a year for part-time work? and what happens with their staffs when they are not in washington, d.c.? are they just there in the offices? we have a lot of waste that

folks do not want to talk about. they want to talk about what the little man does or what the little man should get, but the prima donna as do not want to entertain the idea of them losing some of their benefits. -- the prima donnas do not want to entertain the idea of them losing some of their benefits. guest: congress has voted to freeze its own pay the past couple of years. the federal work force -- their pay has been frozen, starting in 2011. it was a two-year pay freeze, but congress has voted to freeze its own pay over the last few years, and there is a bill and a movement within congress circulating. it is bipartisan, and it was shepherded by representative gifford of arizona before she left, and it basically calls for a 5% cut in the congressional salary. whether that is going to go anywhere is another story, but

there are folks in congress that are sensitive to the issue and what to do something to fix it. host: arlington, virginia, republican line. guest: -- caller: good morning. when our country was founded, men were serving out of willingness and motivation to serve our country for the greater good, but as time has progressed, there has been a shift for people into jobs with the government for the stability and safety and benefits, and because of that, the overall efficiency of the individual worker has declined. i am a former marine. my family work for a government contractor, and i work for a building that houses a

government agency, and we get that aid, and the crowd of people get on the elevator at 8:00. they go down the elevator. they go to starbucks. they have their own starbucks run. they leave for lunch at 11:50. they get back at 12:15 and they are off at 12:00 city. it is the productivity of the individual worker because it is a not-for-profit entity, and we have a not-for-profit entity and the overall productivity and efficiency of the individual workers declines. therefore, it is a reduction that might be good to incentivize the individual to produce more and be more efficient. guest: that essentially an argument that has been made, that government workers have not been as efficient as they can be because the system is set up to benefit them, and it is

difficult to fire people, but paid for performance systems within the government that you do not necessarily get a promotion or compensation if you do not get a performance evaluation that is satisfactory -- there are ways to, you know, punish workers that do not do their job efficiently or effectively. as far as clocking in or clocking out, there are a lot of federal workers that work off the clock, depending on the job they have. many law enforcement officials, folks that work for the month -- it is difficult to quantify the fact that everybody works sort of an eight-hour day when there are so many different roles and demands in government. it is sort of difficult to make the argument that the government overall is inefficient. there are certainly inefficiencies within it, but the federal work force is, to a

large degree, doing the best they can with what they've got. host: is a web site called usa jobs. what is that? guest: basically, it is an online federal jobs board for people to search for and apply for federal jobs of all stripes. different salary levels, different types of jobs. you can search by agency, salary, geography. usa jobs is in its third version. federal government took it over from monster.com, who had a contract to run it. so far, the relaunch was in mid-october. it has not gone very well. there have been a lot of technical glitches. users are very upset. they have had difficult getting accurate searches. resumes have been lost.

it has been an embarrassment for the administration, especially one that prides itself on being tech savvy. they have fixed some of the problem so far, but there are still issues, and it is not where it should be. it was $18 million or $20 million to redo the site. that was the last couple of years. they took over the contract from the monster in about 2009, i believe, but monster had a $6 million contract going to 2004, so this has been a pretty expensive project. there was a security breach on monster's site, and they were worried about mangling federal resumes and applications with the private sector, and they decided that it wanted to take it in house because they wanted it to be

more secure and wanted to save taxpayer money, which remains to be seen at this point. >> -- caller: i have a question whether there has been an analysis done on the cost administratively in the private sector compared to the public sector. i have a funny feeling that the administrative cost in the public sector is far higher. i wonder if that is where a lot of the waste is. i will take my answer offline. >> i cannot claim to be an expert on administrative costs and the public and private sectors. again, i think it really depends on what you are talking about specifically. as i mentioned, there are certainly inefficiencies in government, duplications of services, duplications of worked. part of what the obama administration and administrations prior to this

one have tried to do is reduce some of that duplication and create more efficiencies and have federal workers look for places where they can consolidate and reduce some ways, however small it may be, and that is certainly an initiative that is ongoing. whether that produces serious savings is also another story. host: we have set aside a line for federal workers this morning. call from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about federal law enforcement. i was a border patrol agent for three years, and i wanted to talk about how much of a sacrifice agents at the border make. a lot of us are not from that region, so we are moving ourselves down there.

we work midnight, swing, day hours, weekends, all holidays. you really cannot compare -- when we get it to these arguments, people need to understand that there are issues dating from offices in washington where it is assumed people work at a clock to 4:00 and then go home, but they make a big sacrifice. it hurts the overall morale of these guys who do not follow politics when they see something like this. i mean, to these guys, they might lose their jobs. they might get salary cuts. i think we need to bake -- just separate federal law enforcement from the perennial worker. guest: as i mentioned with the

last caller, you cannot say that every federal worker works 8:00 to 4:00, and i specifically mentioned law enforcement. again, to speak to the issue of loral -- morale and how federal workers and law enforcement workers feel about some of the rhetoric being used to describe what they do or to argue in favor of reducing pay and benefits -- it really gets us away from the central issue of whether it is a legitimate debate to have and how benefits and pay might be brought a little bit more in line in some instances with the private sector. unfortunately, there is a lot of heat on both sides. the substance of the debate gets lost and people just focus on some of the - talks. host: will there be an argument

that if you reduce the number of federal workers, more contractors will be brought in to supplement them? guest: that is an argument that has been made here that is what happened during the clinton administration. there was federal downsizing and a lot of contractors were brought in to supplement the positions that were eliminated. the problem is that it sets up a tense relationship between federal workers and contractors who really do work side-by-side on many projects. one of the fears federal workers have is that their jobs will be contract it out and contractors will come on, that they will lose their jobs. it is a legitimate fear have, and there are some things that are better handled by contractors and federal employees, just as there are jobs better performed by federal employees. host: a few more minutes with

our guests. columbus, ohio, democrat line. caller: the workers they hire -- they do not have authority to do the work. they do not do the work as good, and they are not dependable. since the clinton years, she has to work for free to even get her work on because it is so much more to let federal workers go because they are so good. guest: a lot of federal workers are very dedicated to their jobs. they do not necessarily have to go in on a saturday, but they do because they believe in the work they do and feel a strong commitment to serving the public. and many contractors feel that way as well. i think that the public gets the best service when you have federal workers and contractors committed to providing quality

services in the most efficient and effective manner. that is an ideal world. it does not always happen, but by and large, services get delivered. in washington, we talk about how dysfunctional they are and they are to some degree, but the federal government, the government, and federal workers get their job done for the most part. host: california, republican line. good morning. caller: i have a trillion, as from the sec watching it pornography when and what was going down. the dinosaur was the woman who called in this morning bragging about how she was working right now as a government employee when she is calling a talk-show, calling c-span. in the private sector, you would be fired for that. this is the absolute absurdity that this woman on my dime is calling this show while i am

paying for her benefits, which are bloated, and her inefficiencies, which are monumental. host: new jersey, line for federal workers, go ahead. caller: i am if federal worker and i happen to be republican, so i feel a little torn. i wonder where the va comes in. that is where i work. i think the va works on a shoestring budget, from what i can tell, and i could take a pay cut to work for the via. i am a veteran and a lot of the workers are veterans. i just wondered where that goes. i have not heard it mentioned that much. i will take my answer off the air. guest: the va is an interesting case. in the midst of all these proposals, there have been different proposals from both sides of the aisle about

exempting certain agencies, attrition, from the 10% reduction or whatever it is, if it comes to pass. va is one of those agencies that has been talked about because of the fact that it does such critical work, especially with the drawdown in iraq and afghanistan. you have more betts coming back who are going to need benefits -- you have more vets coming back to are going to need benefits, and a lot of people believe it is not a good idea. homeland security is another one as well as defense. all three of those departments really increased in size after 9/11 and remain sort of critical components. like i said, both sides of the aisle are looking to, to some degree, protect those agencies from any work force reductions.

host: for all the talk of the interest in reducing the work force, what is the actuality it will happen? guest: as far as the house's concern, it is obviously republican-lead. there is interest in the house to get the bill passed. what happens when it gets to the senate? that remains to be seen, but there are proposals being put forth in the senate that want to further freeze pay for federal workers that are looking to get federal workers to contribute more to their pension, and that is also a proposal of the obama administration. you have both sides of the aisle putting forth proposals that affect the federal work force. the is that something will happen are pretty good. as far as attrition is concerned, it is not clear, but as far as some of the other things, there will be something coming down the pike.

host: thank you for your time. not forget tonight, at a clock, you can watch a lincoln/douglas style debate between herman cain and newt gingrich. you can also listen to it on c- span radio and c-span.org as well. tomorrow, we will talk about the latest on the american economy, especially with the figures coming out yesterday. politics will take place from 8:30 to 9:30. jennifer rubin of "washington post" as well as jamal simmons. then, 9:00, we will discuss -- and at a clock 30, we will discuss superpac and there ands half of. on the left and. that is it for today. thanks for watching. >> "washington journal"

continues. >> here is a look at our schedule. next, congress honors japanese americans with a gold medal ceremony at the u.s. capitol. then, legislation to help the u.s. postal service financially secure. after that, a house floor debate from earlier this week. later, remarks from house speaker johnhn