nation's economy with gregory ip. a look house super pac influence the process. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. all live view of the u.s. capitol. president obama begins his week here in washington before heading for hawaii on thursday for the start of this year's asian pacific conference. the senate in the session this week. the house is out. from the "new york times."

new fears of a surgeon al qaeda terror. -- of a surge in al qaeda terror. newt gingrich and herman cain play nice in the debate. the question, using the word from herman cain, talking about the nitpicking of the media, saying that they are "downright dishonest." are telephone numbers are on the screen. we welcome our viewers and listeners on c-span radio, send us a tweed or an e-mail as well. a headline from the "chicago oneune," when you're out, presidential candidate, 12 months ago. welcome to the campaign.

meanwhile, from politico, which has published more than 90 stories in the last six days on herman cain, the headline -- they agreed more than they debated. it was formatted after the lincoln-douglas debates. it was touted as a modern lincoln-douglas debates between the two presidential candidates. it turned out to be an affable discussion between the two who differed only in style. one of the issues that came from the debate getting a lot of attention, at the very end, herman cain's comments about the media. we will have those in just a

moment. again, the telephone numbers. you can send this in e-mail or 8 tweet. we have the comments of herman cain ready. we go to brian in illinois. caller: just a comment on the media in general, electronic media. a lot people do not know what they are talking about. they do not in -- they do not ask, intelligent, smart questions. a perfect example would be the lead up to the iraq war by george w. bush. there was a lot of obviously very flawed statements and positions that the administration was putting out. but no one in the electronic

media could seem to figure out or ask the hard questions. everyone went along with the drum beat forward. i think they wanted the excitement of war and wanted to cover a hot war. it was appalling, the level or the lack of intelligence exhibited by electronic media in this country. host: how would you fix the problem? caller: let's start with the coverage in elections. every channel says, what is romney going to do? is the woman going to come forward? all of these idiotic stories. i realize that a lot of americans like to watch. that is part of the problem. but media needs to find the real issues and spend times on those, even though many americans are not interested in them. host: thank you for the call from illinois. now joining us, the debate took

place last night there. we cover that live on this network. it is available on our website, as is all of our programming, c- span.org. go ahead with your comment. caller: what is the time and date set for the general election? host: it is a year away. the first tuesday in november. caller: [unintelligible] so the general elections are next year. state or federal? host: the elections this year except in virginia where they all let some statewide officeholders for the state senate, in most cases local elections for mayor, next

year's, all of the house members will be on the ballot, and the president on the ballot in his reelection effort. and 33% of the senate. herman cain call some in the medium "downright dishonest to carry -- "downright dishonest." caller: he gets away with this because the support that follow people like herman cain and sarah palin. the general american populace, the level of education is so low, anything goes. all you have to do now is to come up with a catchy slogan, say god, guns, and gays, you are against them. and you get elected. herman cain, he knows exactly what he is doing.

he speaks in this pseudo-jesse jackson style, semi educated, but he speaks to people who are even less educated, that cling to god's and guns and gays as a way to -- there is no logic with these people. but they have a right to vote. that is what is going on out there. until people get more educated and think more, we will see people like herman cain, we're going to see our role of republicans all but eugene evolution, and herman cain can get away -- a row of republicans all the feuding evolution, and herman cain will -- allrefuting evolution, and herman cain, going after him with this female thing will not go -- hurt him.

it might make him a supreme court justice, if not president. host: the discussion has already started on our twitter page. here is one. the associated press has this headline. pointing out that growing agitated after this debate come said that they were an ethical. he plans to never answer questions about the incident. he said, you have got it. more from last night's debate. televised portion that took place in texas. i two-person debate between newt gingrich and herman cain. the comments of herman cain getting a lot of attention this sunday morning.

>> i did not realize the fly- picking nature of the media when you are running up in the polls. that's been the biggest surprise. if there is a journalistic standard, a lot of them do not follow it. as a result, too many people get misinformation and disinformation. it is the reaction in behavior of the media that has been my biggest prize. i thought -- and this will probably get taken the wrong way, but i did not take political correctness school. [applause] people in't too many the media that are downright honest -- not all, but too of them doing a disservice to the american people. host: those comments we're talking about this morning. an article from jonathan martin.

below that, a series of sidebar stories, including a new poll from politico indicating herman cahn is still holding steady with support at 23%, essentially tied with mitt romney one week after the story first broke. leon joins us from fort lauderdale, florida on the republican line. caller: i would like to make a comment that i would hope that after the majority of the american public follows the debate, follows the candidates, and other news outlets, i hope they understand that these are messages tuned to specific people. it is not that mr. cain is not right. but based on some of the articles that are very political, such as moveon.org,

they are oriented toward one goal. so be careful what you are reading. and before you start to read anything, i understand that this should not be a time for decisiveness -- divisiveness. host: chris from alabama is a constant tweeter. on the democrats' line, jaffa's on the phone. -- jeff is on the phone. caller: it is not that i care that much about the initial problem, and that is a problem in itself. can you hear me? host: yes, sure thing. caller: sorry. then he gets really divisive about it, knocking the media's

heads, and he always seems to me like a boss. i do not want abbas as a president. what i would rather have -- a boss as a president. if i was a reporter asking him a question, how would it said, you're not my employer. you're not my boss. these to the questions that people will ask anyway. host: from twitter. next is tom from brooklyn, new york on our line for republicans. the comments of herman cain calling some in the media "downright dishonest." caller: the media is such a broad term. it is very difficult to define. what bothers me is so many

people coming in and admonishing c-span for their distorted points of view. c-span is a -- i will not save perfect, but is a good model. i would like to see an independent branch of government dealing with the news that could compete with the other media. but that have access to documents in the government, and that they felt that it was important for those documents to be released, that would have that authority, something along the same structure as the supreme court, where the people who decide what is going to be released today in -- and it would be chosen by the president with the consent of the senate.

host: based on that model and knowing public officials the way that you do, do you think anything negative or damaging would be released under that model or scenario? caller: yes, the people chosen with integrity are independent, ok? independent, and cannot be fired. there would be immune -- they would be immune to the criticisms and the political pressures. just the way the associate justices of the supreme court in a sense are immune. but in general, no, i do not believe that the media has a problem, except for these shows on cable tv which were designed for entertainment. all they want -- the politicians

on those shows, are to yell at each other. when people yell at each other in college other names, they will never sit down -- and call each other names, they will never sit down and respect the other person's point of view. host: thank you for sharing your point of view with us this morning. another headline. it is available on-line at the "new york times" website. the debate was modeled after the lincoln-douglas debates of 1858. they were two candidates and no ground rules other than pledges of civility. cain finds himself struggling to steady his campaign amid reports that two females accordions -- sub ordinance at the national restaurant association filed sexual harassment charges against him.

one official said that it would be nice to get away from the -- that is this morning from inside the "washington post," from the debate carried live on c-span last night. herman cain claimed that some in the media are "downright dishonest." that is what we are discussing today. what are your thoughts? caller: i agree with the lady who spoke from massachusetts. slogans -- and i did vote for him -- a change that you can believe in, and the media that did indeed collect the last president, and yes, bill of

journalism is now still prevalent in all of our media. -- yellow journalism is still prevalent in all of our media. all of the literature that you read is either one side or the other. there are really no really true documentaries on the issues any more. not that there ever was. but that would be really what the public needs. and you can present a documentary in a way that is, if you will, entertaining for the public to hear about. thank you so much. we appreciate you. host: thank-you, lisa. this headline as we said at the top of the program, a year before election day. there is a portion of what the "washington post" is reporting today.

president obama faces the most difficult reelection environment of any white house incumbent in two decades. after three years of pitched battles between the president and congressional republicans, the country is heading toward --

back to your calls and the comments of herman cain last night. carloses on the phone from the republican line in west virginia. caller: i was watching a program on fox news the other day. the first week that the story broke on herman cain, there were something like 60 stories in the mainstream media. as compared to bill clinton and paula jones, the first week that story broke, there was one story in the mainstream -- in the mainstream wilmedia. and kathleen willie, there were like three stories. and the broderick woman that he supposedly right, in the first week, there were only a couple of stories in the mainstream media.

a conservative black man that the media will not put up with, the liberals just cannot stand to see a conservative african- american. i think that is what it is boiling down to. host: i do not want to disagree with your premise, but the internet was different during the malo whiskey story. drudge at the story and it became the story that it was. caller no, i am talking about the mainstream media, abc, nbc, cbs. i am not talking about the internet. host: but do you think that the internet drives the story differently that would have 15 years ago? caller: are you saying that there is no bias in the mainstream media at all? host: no, i'm just saying that

the media is different now. collor and i think that that is a factor, but not the main factor. host: another tweet. here is how the story unfolded in a couple of capitol hill publications. came blames perry for the leak of the story. from politico, fresh details in the cian drama, the headline on friday. one of the individuals came board alleging the behavior about herman cain. more than 90 stories over the past six days. here is just one of the photographs of reporters has herman cain met with legislators to talk about health care. they were asking questions about the allegations of sexual

harassment. back to your phone calls. brian from green bay, wisconsin, foul line for independents -- on our line for independents. caller: the internet is driving things out of control. and there is very little accountability for the media. they can say and do what ever they want, but many political figures that say something, they get crucified. herman cain will get crucified and what he said because he took a stand against the mainstream media. and they will rake him over the coals because of this. and yet the liberal media can do anything that they want. and there is no accountability. it is very unfortunate. back in the old days, in the political days in the 1940's, the media had a conscience and morals. unfortunately the media does not have morals of conscience

anymore. they can say and do anything that they want. and yet a political figure gets crucified. unfortunately our media dictates who is selected in these presidential elections based on their own feelings instead of letting the american people think for themselves and make their own decisions. unfortunately, it is driven by the early polls. why do we have to have a ridiculous number of polls? a poll this and a poll that, why did they have to start out so far in advance? they start polls two years in advance? let the american people get an independent stance on these people instead of this skewed view, usually liberal, because that is how the media is, and let the american people think for themselves. and the last thing, the people that are voting, how we get the

vote is ridiculous. host: thank you. going back to the story in the "washington post." this year, it is very different from past campaigns because of the roles that the debate has shaped in -- played in shaping go mood of the electorate. a couple of e-mails. from: the of kentucky. da of kentucky. journal@c-span.org is how you can send us an e-mail.

nexus of your joining us watching satellite in ghana, africa. go ahead, please. you are on the air, please go ahead. caller: thank you very much for putting me on line. [unintelligible] a lot like to encourage herman cain. i would like to keep him going on. the role of africa right now, we are firmly behind herman cain. thank you very much. host: thank you for watching us from ghana.

the democrats' line. good morning, donald. caller i am a die-hard democrat. and i disagree completely with everything that they said. to me, it sounded callous and insensitive to the needs of the american people. but in a strange way, cain is very likeable because of his sense of humor, probably. he reminds me of the old man gets out of my grandfather's porch. they were not to be taken seriously. most of the things he said about unemployment, what he would do with unemployment benefits and all this kind of stuff, these are certainly not things that the american public needs. and the media scrutiny, if he does not like it, maybe he should drop out. i was just one to say, because if that is bothering him, the american media scrutinizing

him, then what will he do when the whole world is scrutinizing him or when his real problems? any politician in the game now, in the political game, should be ready to deal with that. that should not be an issue. ok of the media says this or that, so what? stay on . if your point is important and will do good for the people. the people will recognize that. host: bank for the call. -- thank you for the call. another portion of we want to read, but gabrielle giffords has a " coming up -- a book coming out. we will have more on this book coming out. she was shot on january 8 and continues to recover in tucson, arizona.

this columnist's point south that the worst week in washington was for herman cain. herman cain said he did nothing about it, and any new bridge something about it. mark bloc walked away from the allegation, telling everyone to get on with the campaign. meanwhile, jim hines has this point of view. we get a view from our republican line. good morning, and what is your take on all this, gloria? caller: i have lived 78 years. i want to tell you that that was

one of the most remarkable programs that i have seen on television. i love the newt gingrich. i have loved him for years, ever since he first tried to clean up washington. but herman cain, that was a stroke of genius. if we had those two running the government of this country, we might just get somewhere. so you can tell them, that both of them needs to be there. finally, we have some southerners who just might straighten this whole thing out. i love both of them. an ally may send then might congressional district census -- i may now send them my

congressional district sense is that i'm supposed to send an. boy, do i have an opinion. they need for putting mia -- putting on some intelligent people. but i agree with herman cain that the media is nothing but gossipmongers. they get people to listen and watch by fabricating all this gossip. unfortunately americans live on a lot of this. but they turned the tv off when you get started on some of these -- i turn the tv off when you get started on some of this getting people to watch by fabricating stories. i would appreciate it if everybody would be more

truthful, and let's get down to it a little bit of business. host: what year were you born? caller: i was born in 1924. i want to tell you that i've earned three college degrees. so do not count me out because of the way i talk. i talk southern. but i am very intelligent. host: at the age of 88, i am not counting you out at all. thank you for the phone call. caller: a lot of people say that we are down. but i guarantee you, we are not. all right, thank you for an intelligent program. host: thank you, gloria. you made our morning. do not be afraid to call in.

caller: i am a republican. host: thank you for the call, 88 years old. "national journal," and mitt romney and remained strong with an ever. here is more for the debate that gloria watched last night the lincoln-douglas style debate. it has been posted on our website. with herman cain and newt gingrich. >> if you believe in the free market, we should be able to design a series of choices where the marketplace and beats out the bureaucratic system, and people go to it because it is better for them, not because they have been compelled by politicians to go there. as a practical matter, if you're dealing with something the size of medicare, you cannot force people because they will defeat

you. in fact, the american people at politicians impose upon them. let's get obamacare. the overwhelming majority want to repeal it. we have to come up with solutions that are actually better, that people say yes. walmart does not say pass a lot to make people come here. it is their job to better value to products of the people come here so that people think they are getting a better deal. we have to think about how we reshaped the country. the scale in shape of change that we need is so large, defeating so many entrenched elements of the left, that we have to start with a strategy with the american people deciding they want of them better future. -- that they want a better future. host: just giving you a flavor of the debate.

the debate between herman cain and newt gingrich last night. this story from inside the "washington post." they have known each other for more than 25 years. ken joins us from michigan. caller: thank you for c-span. i think the national media is very dishonest. let me give you one example. recently we had the two hikers, the americans freed from iran, and that story ran for months, if not years. at the same time, while those hikers were in the news every day, there was a young lady, her name was rachel corrie, she was protesting in 2003. palestinian homes were being demolished and the israelis decided to dump of a bucket of

sand on her and bulldoze her to death. they easily could have arrested her. during this crisis, the parents of the r -- of rachel corrie were selling the israeli government and never heard anything about it on the national media. that is how the national media shapes the content and how they control laws and how they want us to believe in god is in the future conflicts, i believe. host: from our twitter page. a lot of people waiting in on the herman cain issue. and from our e-mail, bop from venice, florida.

meanwhile, paul latest in a series of straw polls over the weekend. ron paul, polling third or fourth in a number of polls, coming out on top in the illinois republican poll. second was mitt romney. also, getting support, herman cain. the illinois straw poll was the largest of the three that -- of those that hold polls. ron paul coming out on top. patrick joins us from new castle, delaware. caller: i love your tie.

host: thank you. caller: i agree with the person who was talking about rachel corrie. i love to see c-span put on a big story about that. as far as herman cain and the republicans, a middle-class person who votes for the republicans is committing suicide. they will destroy the middle class. the worst one, i think, is herman cain. he is a disgrace, as far as i can say. i did not like him before he made his statement that sexual- harassment is fly-specing. who would say that? and running a pizza company does not come close to make you capable of running the united states government. that is the most complex job in the world. everyone knows that. based on the retractions and the changes in his story, just in the one little story that you

read, anyone who votes for him is crazy. and obama is becoming a good president. he is learning. he has made some mistakes but he will do a good job in his second term when he is elected. host: thank you for the call. one of the ironies pointed out by mike allan in the politico, available on-line, was that the settlement at the national -- that the -- that the settlement at the national restaurant association from one of the accusers was worked out in september 1999, 9/99. i want to let you know about "newsmakers" coming up after "washington journal." the issue of a balanced budget amendment, one of the issues we ask congressman steny hoyer, the

democratic leader in the house of representatives by below nancy pelosi. >> what we need now is not an amendment that will be respected. we need immediate action now. this super committee poses that opportunity. i am hopeful that a majority of the house and the senate would support a product that the committee comes up with. that is what we ought to be focused on. i think the balanced budget amendment right now is a distraction and a political device, not policy device. host: congressman steny hoyer, the democratic whip in the house of representatives. he is our guest on "newsmakers." next is sean joining us from massachusetts. the republican line. caller i hope you give me enough time like you gave everyone else. the media will report what it always reports.

the problem is that almost four of millennia, every time our world leaders get together and have these international meetings with the builder birds and the rothschilds, they determine what will happen before things happen. people need to get to know what is really happening. there are 7 billion people on this planet, ok? the way that media and the leaders of these countries that, they treat us like cattle, ok? how are birth certificates are on the stock exchange being sold and they will not tell us that. these people get together -- host: how do you know that your birth certificate is being sold on the stock market? caller: there is a thing they just took off the internet. basically, when these leaders get together, they bankrupt countries so that they can get in and get all the resources, and after the bankruptcy

country, they'd tell these people that you have birth certificates. they are on the federal exchange. host: i will leave it there. from the twitter page. nate silver has an extensive piece looking at the president's reelection effort. what are the president's chances of being reelected? we will be talking about later on with our sunday roundtable. jason joins us from baltimore. good morning. caller: i have a comment about the scale and size of the problems of this country, from newt gingrich. a lot of people make their judgments, going back to the media, based on the mainstream media.

when it comes down to finance, i think americans are illiterate. i have been a day trader and i follow ron paul mostly. since 2008, i have been in gold. the reason we're having these problems is because of the exploding deficit that we have. and the interest rates the federal reserve has been putting out. i am an independent and would pose the question, if you hate this, you would hate obama even more, because he is doing the same thing. george bush racked up the debt, 50%, he had low interest rates and two wars. obama has 0% interest rate, and

has almost six wars. host: thank you for the call. from one of our viewers on the twitter page. again, our twitter page. we continue the kit you contenders," looking at the candidacy of barry goldwater. his 1964 campaign. last friday night, we looked at the candidacy of adlai stevenson. you can watch it again at 10:30 a.m. eastern time, 7:30 a.m. for our west coast listeners. all that is available at c- span.org, 14 weeks of men who ran and lost the presidential

campaign. caller: i find it very amusing to hear all the republican conservatives calling on saying that the liberal media is trying to attack herman cain. we love herman cain. he is a barrel of laughs. we will like nothing better to see him be the republican candidate. it is the republican establishment attacking him. i like to see more americans running for president. thank you. host: from memphis, tenn., good morning. please go ahead. caller: i would like to state that the time that we did see two black americans running for president, and they are being attacked, and that they have a capability to run a country.

herman cain said that he was not there to answer any questions. obama would never have done that. he would go is give you an answer whether it was right or wrong, political, but he would give you an answer. herman cain is too much of a ceo. he is the ceo of godfather's pizza, a chain named after mafia-style way of life. come on now. if you vote for this guy, you have to be crazy eason -- even as a republican. host: from twitter. one more moment from last night's debate, a lincoln- douglas-style debate between herman cain and newt gingrich. >> if you were bayh's president of united states --

-- vice president of united states -- [laughter] what would you want the president to assign you to do first? [applause] >> having studied my good friend dick cheney, i would not go hunting. host: of last night's debate, for a tea party organization in the houston area. we carry that live here on c- span. it is available on our website at c-span.org. coming up in a moment, gregory ip, the author of this book.

the latest unemployment numbers and the gyrations on wall street, and the meeting that took place at the g-20 summit in france, what it all means for you. it is coming up in just a moment as the "washington journal" continues on the sunday morning, november 6. ♪ >> reading the right box is usually helpful. but even the wrong books can be an education. it is good to be -- good to see what can be done. >> stacy schiff won a pulitzer

prize for her book. pitcher remember that publishers are desperate for good books and an exciting new offered to publish. there should be an enormous hope for what is yet to be done. >> more with stacy schiff tonight on "q&a." >> when i finally started to sell my book, every book -- every person i worked with, i rejection letter. they would say, we love your stuff. i would say, what about this? >> questioning the motivation, at fixed, and morality of brilliant people. his book was adapted for the screen as "the social network." his latest, "sex on the man" follows a astronaut who steals a

safe of moon rocks. he is on book tv on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome gregory ip of the economist, and the author of "the little book of economics." i want to talk about this in a moment but talk about the more immediate issue, the situation in greece, and europe in general. the g-20 met last week. there seem to be optimism at the end of the week. but there was continued uncertainty over the stability of the greek government. guest: you might have other politicians making things worse. after a lot of negotiations, european leaders agreed to a variety of measures to strengthen their tools for

fighting a crisis. one was an agreement by the private sector to reduce the amount of money that greece and showed them to make their debt more parable and less likely -- that greece owed them to make their debt more manageable. the second was to leverage it up to make private investors more powerful and use that money to buy the bonds of spain and italy. they are not thought to have the same fundamental problems of greece. in the third piece was to recapitalize the banks. but the problem is that it all requires the agreement of all the countries, including greece. greece has gone along with this for the past years because it was necessary to get the money to pay their bills. but it has been terrific for the greek people.

enormous social unrest, and the prime minister finally decided that his political future can no longer be sustained on forcing measures through parliament. he surprised europe by a saying that they would put this to the people. this through everyone into a tizzy. the greek people could reject it and make all of these fire fighting measures pointless. even if they accepted it, there would be two months of uncertainty of having to deal with it. their red papandreou in the riot act -- they read papandreou of the riot act. he has said that they would not have the referendum but the situation is still unstable. this means we still have an

enormous amount of uncertainty in your. host: what can you tell us about the greek prime minister trained here in the united states? guest: if you go back a few years, he is a socialist. when you went for the election and fall of 2009, it was not on austerity. he wanted to do more budget stimulus just like barack obama is doing in the united states. but once elected, he found that the previous government had been cooking the books for five years. he had to completely reverse and become the austerity prime minister, raising taxes, cutting spending, forcing people to work longer before they retire, and that it did enormous damage to his standing. the move by papandreou has been called by others to be the hail mary pass. some would say that it was a

reckless gesture. host: talking about her rhetoric economic conditions in -- the horrific economic conditions in greece, did they bring this on themselves? guest: when they joined the eurozone, one of the reasons was to give up the drop month. -- drachma. they got less money -- they got lent money at the same rate as germany. but there was a lot of accounting machinations, and greece did not improve the competitiveness of their economy. so the eight or nine years where interest rates came down, and

use of conception all the while southern europe, led to these underlying problems. -- and the consumption that grew in southern europe, it led to these underlying problems. their reforms that could take 10 to 20 years and he is trying to do them in 12 months. host: lemieux ask you about the unemployment numbers here at home. -- let me ask you about the unemployment numbers your town. guest: it is a situation where the worst news is better news. back in august, there were zero jobs created. now two months later, it turns out that there were 100,000 jobs created in the month of august. on employment growth is averaging about 100,000 per month. in the private sector alone, it is 125,000 alone.

but the government continues to lay people off. for that reason, we have not seen the unemployment rate come down. it would be fine if the unemployment rate was 5%. but it is 9%. that spells trouble for the overall economy, more than two years into recovery, with no recovery. it is a lot of trouble for barack obama. no president has been reelected looking at unemployment numbers like this. host: when ronald reagan was elected in 1984, the unemployment numbers were higher, but people thought that the economy was turning around. guest: people have to think that things are getting better. people right now do not feel that things are getting better. host: talking about middle-class america, the headline in the

"washington post." voters are frustrated. guest: the articles about how things are polarized between the right and left. the crisis and the recession has tended to aggravate those things. the two size or more entrenched about the problems and how to solve it. some republicans believe the problem is too much debt. and democrats believe precisely the opposite. that is the reason we're stuck in this situation for the president had a plan on the table to sustain growth and the republicans are in no mood to pass nothing more than token amounts of it. host: how do you get them talking to each other? guest: i do not know. political experts look at this and shake their heads.

the degree of this functionality is perhaps unprecedented. -- of dysfunctionality is perhaps unprecedented. republicans are focused on regaining the white house. they do not believe that the president's plan would do much to help the economy, and it does not help their enthusiasm that if the plan did help the economy, the beneficiary would be the president. host: the telephone numbers are wrong the screens. our e-mail address, journal@c- span.org. you can also send comments by twitter. good morning. caller: i love your show and you guys are fantastic for the country. what i am calling about is -- this week's issue of "the

nation" magazine, they have an article by william grider, talking about how to reduce the amount of money owed by mortgages under water, and how the treasury department and the government is ignoring that. instead, the term is "extend and pretend." it is propping up the profitability of the banks by using fannie and freddie. the treasury department seems to be resistant to the problem. my question is this -- will we ever be able to break the cycle of money being drained from the middle class and given to the top 1% of people, unless we have some reasonable politicians?

because this current white house is not in the game to fix the situation. they are simply continuing to kick the ball down the road. host: thank you for the call. guest: a good question about the housing market. roughly 25% of people that the home -- own a home are under water in their markets. they have less wealth and they are less inclined to spend. they are more ready to default. and that causes problems for the bank when they have to write down the loan. it makes them less willing to lend. there are many things holding the economy back. the single biggest thing would be that factor. but why does the government not do something to help the people out of that problem and take some of that debt away? we have studied other countries going through financial crisis.

one thing is to get all of that debt had this system and get the financial system back to a healthy state. the main reason why is because it is hard to get a consensus in the country that the people who owe that money deserve to be held. going back to the very root of the tea party, it began with iran on cnbc against a government program to help people with negative equity. he basically said, do you want your taxpayer money going to help your neighbor who bought a house with granite countertops and at 3-car garage? many do not want to be in that position. .

in the 80s and the 90s when i was going to school and following the economy both in canada and in the united states, the two things we learned about most were inflation and budget deficits and basically inflation was always too high and central banks should try to get lower and deficits government should try to get them lower. in deficits now, and the central bank has been unable to do more to stimulate, but we have a central bank that doesn't have the tools to deal with deflation. similarly with budget deficits, i've been a hawk all my life but you have a situation now where the private sector is trying to pay off debt and if governments were going to join in you have a complete collapse in demand.

this comes along twice a century where everything you thought you knew about the economy was wrong. >> go back to if first question the situation in greece. the greek prime minister has resigned. what does that mean? guest: well, it all depends on who takes over. he has been trying to encourage the op sigs to form a coalition that would then basically manage the government implement the austerity package and the conditions of the bailout until new conditions could be called. one of the ironies is that the prime minister went to school in the united states, so did the leader of the opposition. they are actually friends and yet they have become these bitter rivals and the leader has been very opposed to the austerity package. it will be interesting to see whether in the next few months as a new care taker takes over as they struggle to perhaps form a coalition or some sort of political consensus to run

the country, whether that consensus coaleses around implementing the austerity package and the conditions of the bailout or whether it moves away from that. if it's the first then you will buy yourself some time. if in fact the political dynamics start to fall apart in terms of support disintegrating, then you will see instability rise because most people anticipate that the new elections that are almost inevitably coming in greece are going to result in a repudiation of this package. host: cnn reporting on the resignation of the prime minister. caller: good morning. briefly, i'm a long-time reader of the economist and i'm pleased that they finally recognize that there is no middle ground in our discourse

over here. but that i'm wondering why is it that we don't have any discussion about the fact that technology and industry moved away from certain regions of the country and things like the housing contracts with fannie mae and freddie mac were to -- the efforts of certain politicians to try and sweep money back into areas that had just lost their industry, like long shoremen in new york and such where container ships and the technologies just moved everything away. i mean, our big ports now are memphis, tennessee and louisville, kentucky, because they're if he had ex and ups

airport -- fed ex and ups airports. >> well, he makes an interesting point because even though most unemployment today is a direct consequence of the crisis and the recession that followed there were problems chewing away at the decade before that. the reason americans are loaded up with debt so much was because their income had stagnated and in order to increase their standard in living they had to borrow more. and the other thing we know from looking at polling data is the distress over middle class incomes and the lack of good jobs has been going on for years now, predates the recession and explains why things are importantlyized right now. if you go down -- polarized right now. if you go down to occupy wall street, one of the themes i've detected is an unhappiness with the fact that, again, even

before the crisis the jobs that were available out there did not pay well, the chance force advancement were modest. what turns us around at the beginning of his comment the caller pointed to the fact that tech and industry has moved away from certain regions of the country. one of the things that has contributed has been the decline of good manufacturing jobs. one of the positive things we've had recently including in the numbers we got on friday is that there seems to be a modest revival in manufacturing going on partly because the car stector is coming back to life after the bailouts of detroit. i think part of it is the fact that the u.s. dollar has fallen quite a lot that has made american industry quite competitive and one of the associated phenomenons we've seen is a fairly pronoubsed decline in the midwest's decline in unemployment. are host: so there are at the margins positive signs out there. and the manufacturing jobes

have been the core of our middle class and with that disappearing or being much more competitive, nafta whatever, how do communities like detroit and indiana recover? >> it's interesting. everybody thinks that manufacturing jobs are the underpinning but they are only about 10% of total employment and they haven't been -- i would say that they've been less than 15% for at least a decade or two. it is the case that thrazz lot of good middle class jobs out in the service sector, in telecommunications and utilities. what was interesting about manufacturing jobs is the disparity was not that large. the multiple by which the c.e.o. salary was larger than the shop floor worker was not dramatic, where as in other industries or you see throughout the country the problem isn't so much that health care pays poorly, that media pays poorly, it's that the distribution of incomes in those jobs is so wide you have

a small number of people. and this is true especially in the technology industry, a small number of people, the innovators, managers making enormous salaries. and a lot of middle class jobs have now gone to other countries. so it could be the case that we could recover our competitiveness, no longer have a trade deficit with china and we would have this enormous problem of inequality. and i don't know anybody who has come up with a solution for that. >> our next call from virginia. caller: good morning. don't know whether i'm an independent republican but let me say your shows, asks so many questions and opinions but my call is about illegal immigration and the jobs that are being taken by those illegal immigrants as we profess to be a land of laws and we are not. we are the creator of the greatest number of criminals in

the world. we create criminals every time an individual is allowed to come into the country and take a job. they have off come in through north carolina. so i understand from this area gaining access to a license and then once they come to virginia it isn't checked enough and many of those who are here in frederickburg are illegal you see them everywhere and they are being paid to be here for flee. but if we are a land of laws it seems we would just say hey you have to go back to where you came from and those who are here would then have a greater opportunity to get a job. i just think it's real important. thanks for taking my call. host: thank you. guest: well, illegal immigration has for a long time and continues to be a very inflammatory issue. from an economic point of view, the best data we have shows that the number coming in is

fairly dramatically. things like apprehension along the border is down. now, this could be reflective of several things, a more vigorous enforcement along the borders, the obama administration has stepped up efforts to deport illegals and so forth but the other thing is the american economy hasn't been very attractive thing for a lot of those people who came for those jobs. the unemployment rate, one of the reasons it has not gone up more given the sluggish ngs is that the labor force isn't growing very much. the number of people looking for jobs is small. and we think one of the reasons is that a lot of illegal imgradgets looking for jobs have stopped looking or have gone home. >> what is the figure in terms of population growth? what percent or number of jobs do we need to create each month just to keep pace with the population? guest: population grows roughly around 1% per year. so i would say you need 100,000 jobs per month.

however, as i go into some detail those numbers bouns around a lot. at a time like this when job opportunities are quite weak, a lot of young people will go back to school instead of looking for jobs and that will drag down the rate of labor force growth and the number of jobs we need to keep the unemployment rate from going up is smaller. and the other thing is we're an aging society. baby boomers are moving to the retirement years. one of the things getting our labor force growing more quickly has been a growing share of women staying in the workforce or going back to work after having children. that phenomenon has not plateaued so between the aging of the baby boomers and the plateauing of women's participation labor force is going to grow more slowly. so it may only be 75,000. that's one of the reasons why we have seen a very small but nonetheless notable decrease in the unemployment rate in the

face of sluggish employment growth. host: how economy borks in the real world is the title of the book. and jim has this point about indiana and detroit. guest: i guess it takes more cynical i want pretation. let's say a lot of those communities were shuffling a lot before the recession because of the hollowing out of manufacturing. which by the way is partly because of the outsourcing of jobs to other countries and the growth of competition from china but also just due to the fact that number one our manufacturers became more productive and didn't need the number of workers to make the cars and that the consumption patterns has also changed. they spend more on health care and education.

host: the greek prime minister is resigning. is announcement coming amid economic and political turmoil in greece and coalition government is now tasked with saving the nation from bankruptcy. guest: so if it's a case that the coalition government will form i take that on the margin of positive news. the coalition appears prepared to do that and what that means is that the adjustment measures that greece is now required to undertake will have bipartisan support and that is very important in terms of establishing a credibility with the rest of europe and with the international community and with the markets. but they are not out of the woods by a long shot.

even with the amount of writeoffs that the international banking community has agreed to, greece's debt burden is still unbearable and europe has not come up with a satisfactory way of protecting spain and italy. those are enormous countries, much bigger debts. a greek-like crisis is much more damaging to europe and united states economy if it is not contained. host: again news this morning from greece that the prime minister is resigning. a coalition government being formed. and elegses being called in the spring. our guest, gregory ip of the economist. and this is a question sent in via e-mail. guest: that's very difficult because economies change over time. if this were 1900, 250% of us

worked on farms until we died. but that wouldn't recognize the fact of how we choose to spend our time or wealth changes over time. what i will focus on is a few thing that is the country could do better to make it more prosperous. i would say the first thing is that we have a society as a whole that consumes too much and saves too little. right now the problem is the opposite. but in all the discussion of our fiscal problems it's a few simple things you could do to rearrange incentives. economists love to talk about int centives. a lot of discussion about tax reform, the super committee, getting deficits down. i would tax gasoline and carbon and other things more heavily and use that money to reduce the burden on incomes. that would get rid of some of the deductions we have for mortgage interest and so forth, which i think cause people to spend their money too much of their money on things like houses and take on too much debt. reform entitlement but a humane and sustained way so over the

next 20 years we would have beneficiaries pay more for their benefits, perhaps wait longer before they retired. i would spend way more of the money that we do right now on supporting the unemployed and to retraining them and putting into programs that help them find new jobs as opposed to handing them a check. host: chapter 3, you give the analogy of flying coast to coast and wondering wouldn't it be nice if you could know where the economy is heading how fast it's growing and whether a recession lies ahead. this is an art not a science. guest: yeah. let's go back to august again for a moment. you recall that we had just basically the three horsemen of the apock lips between the debt ceiling debate here in the united states which caused big loss of confidence, the downgrade and the explosion of new problems in the europe. and a lot of people said oh my goodness the odds have gone up dramatically we're going into

recession and then we had the terrible news of no employment growth in august. and yet what turned out in the aftermath things we could not know is how resilient employers and consumers were. they definitely, there was a hit, they did pause in spending and investing but those things picked up again. i would put the odds of recession at roughly 40%. i wouldn't put them over 50% because it's unusual when the most volatile parts of the economy, namely automobiles, housing and inventories are already so depressed. they're not at this high level that can suddenly collapse and tullp economy into a recession. but i worry we're facing a lot of risk on the political front not just europe but here in the united states where we're facing the expiration of a number of stimulus measures over the next three to four months which could pose an enormous drag on the economy. and without some measure to moderate that wits draw of stimulus you could have a big hit to the economy which is not growing fast enough to

comfortably withstand. >> our guest, u.s. economics editor for the economist. next, good morning chris. caller: thank you for c-span and the economist. this is a dream combination for a political junkies and the hard thinkers. i would like to make one comment. i remember the economist cover in 2005 had a brick falling through the air and it said houses crisis across it and you were right on point with what the housing market was doing. no money down, liar loans et cetera. i'm a little surprised at your willingness to have government intervention because free markets and free people make best decisions and i think this is at the heart of the greek problem is that the airlines owned by the government and the bus companies and the train companies and every

instrumenttality of importance when it comes to the economy. and when the government is so politically sensitive as a parliamentarian government is you fiped that government manipulation is horrible. in america we have federalism. thank god for that. you know? and i think that's really what's going to save us is these firewall's against a national policy that is man iplative of different markets. i think of ben bernanke and the 2% interest rates for as far as the eye can see. wait until events change that. so i would like your comments and also if you can throw in at the epped of there maybe a comment on chinda. they've had some very serious revolutions in the past 100 plus years and they may be on the verge of another one. thank you. guest: thank you. it's i want resting that you raise this point about the economist is supposed to be for small government and so on, which we are. in fact, we sort of struggle with this issue right now. what do you do in a situation

when typically you prefer like bludgets and small government but it seemed that the only way is out of this mess is expanded government. we haven't seen this situation since the 1930s. a colleague likes to talk about small state kensenism. is there a way to get do this without leading to a permanently larger state. we know that the country has a lot of very serious infrastructure needs whether it is highway, rail, mass transit. wouldn't it make sense to borrow the money and rebuild that infrastructure and put people back to work who aren't doing anything right now until bait until the economy has full employment when we would have to pull those people away. host: able to track down the economist cover story that has housing prices and the brick symbolizing falling home prices and this e-mail saying the cause is due to one little guy assuming a no money down

unsecured loan while taking advantage of the other little guy driving the price of housing four times the intrinsic rate. guest: it's funny you mention this cover of the housing prices. the economist had actually been banging on about housing prices since 2002 when they were not so much out of line. it just goes to show wall street often early never wrong. so one of the things that happened is over five or six year period where housing prices continued to rise defying began to change the mentality thinking they could only go in one direction and that was up and that caused people to buy more houses at ever more ridiculous prices and made banks become very sloppy. almost sort of laid the seeds of its own destruction. host: john has this point.

guest: i don't know. how do you define long term? guest: i'm no expert. i don't know if i would be described as capitalistic. i don't think there's any economist alive today that believes that a market based system where private consumers and firms decide what we're going to consume and produce isn't the best one. china has discovered that. that's why they're rushing towards market capitalism. but virtually every, including those of a more persuasion, they have failures, bad things that result from people not realizing that bad consequences of their own decisions. a certain all the ofment amount of government is necessary an in unusual times like this to prevent the economy from getting stuck in a permanent situation of deficient demand. host: self-described libertarian calling from atlanta. kiveraget good morning. and thanks for all who contribute to c-span. i just wanted to comment on your comment on when you said

the prime minister who was resigning today, i hear. when he took office there was years of i think you put it the books being cooked. well, i think that was nothing more than socialism being lived out and it didn't work then and the gentleman, the prime minister that was going to be -- that took office, he just, he was going to perpetuate the situation but it was such a bad situation now they have austerity measures and i think america needs to wake up because i think obama is taking us down the same road. host: thanks for the call. guest: oddly enough, most of the book cooking took place under a conservative government, it was a socialist government that discovered the problem. that sort of thing has gone on through history, under liberal

governments, conservative governments. the problem that both that country had that these european countries had in spain and italy and grease, and the united states had in the 2000s as well. a lot from china had more savings than it knew what to do with had the effect of elevating the value of houses and made it easy to live a life on borrowed money and that is a lifestyle that's very tempting and attractive no matter what your political persuasion is but nots one that's sustainable in the lodge term. host: let's look at the numbers again. 9%, just under 14 million americans still out of work. guest: so i think that in order to get to anything would be -- that we would call a definition of full employment you would have to get that number down to around 7 or 8 million, which means that the rate of jobs that we're creating now it's going to be a very long time, maybe five to ten years before we get to anything like full

employment. host: next, robert from texas. good morning. caller: [inaudible] 20th centry we had a lot of -- what i look at now is that we go through a -- 76 unemployment keeps going up. and balance the -- [inaudible] also keep the economy going. guest: tough time to hear but i

think he was talking about a shorter work week guest: a lot of interest in work sharing. in terms of saying ok instead of four people working 40 hours we'll have five people work 32 hours instead. and the appeal is that although the amount of work doesn't go up you at least spread the unemployment problem around so that no single household is struck by high unemployment. but there's two cav yats associated with that. work sharing does not ultimately create more work it only sort of rearranges the existing work. and the other thing is to the extent that a certain industry needs downsize because whether it was construction today or bloated telecom sector years ago, people shouldn't remain in those longer. and creating schemes that discourages people could hold back the economy in the long run. nonetheless it's got some value to it and policy makers in this country have spent a lot of

time examining those options. host: you write, polling for the home team. guest: well, a lot of people, when they hear about the problems in europe they assume problems is because too much debt and if they could get that debt down they wouldn't have this crisis. that's wrong. europe's debt is actually lower than that of the united states and yet countries are paying 5 or 6% to borrow money while the united states treasury pays 2%. and why such a big dimbs? because so many of those countries don't control theirs any longer. they're analogous to the city of harrisburg. once they can't pay their bills they have no where to turn to. everybody knows if you own a treasury bond, the federal reserve could buy it. they wouldn't want to but it could in the case of great britain could buy the bond. if you had a spanish or italian bond you don't know who you could sell it to. you didn't think much about that risk ten years ago but you

think about it now. what the article tries to point out is that the presence of a central bank is a very important safeguard against the panic and default risk going through europe right now. there is a risk that if this is abused it leads to inflation because a central bank it's actually pressured to buy the bond of a country that can't borrow from private investors, it prints money to do so and it leads to inflation. so you want to set up rules to ensure this does not create inflation. host: our last call from pennsylvania. frank on the phone. republican line. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. here's a painl for your book. we -- page for your book. we need an industrial policy. i think health care is killing industry. do you think apple would employ 300,000 chinese if they had to pay $10,000 to their health

care? i can remember when ge employed a couple hundred,000 people in this country. we used to fire people who wanted health care. now, if they brought 50,000 jobs back, health care would probably bankrupt them. i've invested in companies not in the united states. they can't stand the burden. we're taking jobs to canada. this is 2002 we were paying 6,000 a year health care. we now employ 200 of which 40 were in the finger lakes area. we need an industrial policy. i'm disappointed in the republicans. they have capitalism for investment but not for industry. host: thanks for the call. guest: well it's actually not the case that health care is the reason why the united states is losing these jobs. ultimately economic theory tells us that when you pay your employers more for their health

care you pay them less in terms of their straight wages and that is what we have seen. one of the reasons wages have been stagnant because of an increasing portion of what employers pay for their benefits instead of straight pay. and even if you were to pay them nothing for benefits that would not bring american wages down to what you could pay somebody in china to assemble an ipod or a computer. so the fundamental problem we have here is that because of technology and outsourcing and the fact that you can fly computers across the pacific ocean for very modest almtsd of money it is very easy to take the slow kill jobs and outsource those two other country. that's good for those who like to buy the cheap computers. it's not good for those who used to have good jobs making those things. you have an economy that becomes more bifurcated who become extremely prosperous and

a whole mass of people who are in other industries, whether health or education and incomes are not growing that quickly. host: the book is called the little book of economics. how the world works. and let me conclude about the greek prime minister stepping down and the impact this will have on markets overnight and how markets will react tomorrow. guest: i have a long record of looking very embarrassed the next day but my gut sense right now is from what you've told me is if a coalition government is now forming and will commit itself to putting this set of measures through this will be on net positive. host: thanks very much for being with us. jennifer ruben of the "washington post" blogging and jamal simmons are going to be joining us next as the "washington journal" continues on this sunday morning. but first rgs all of the

programs on this sunday programs from mete the press -- meet the press and others. nancy is keeping track of all of that. good morning, nancy. >> good morning, steve. at noon we begin reairing five network tv talk shows and topics today include the 2012 presidential campaign and the state of the economy. we begin with nbc's meet the press host david gregory welcomes republican presidential candidate john huntsman. bill richardson and mississippi governor hailey barbour. hear this week, host interviews house speaker john boehner talks about the super committee and debt reduction. also former secretary of state condoleezza rice talks about her new book, no higher honor. at 2:00, it's fox news sunday. chris wallace talks with g.o.p. candidate ron paul then representative heath shuler a north carolina democrat, and

mike simpson an idaho republican on a bipartisan encouraging the super committee to cut more than its $1.2 trillion mandate. candy crowley looks at lobbying aimed at the debt reduction panel. shawn kennedy of the air transport association, and david certain never of aarp. hear face the nation from cbs. host leads a panel discussion on allegations of sexual harassment against republican presidential candidate herman cain. reairs begin at noon eastern time with nbc's meet the press, this week, fox news sunday, cnn's state of the union, and face the nation from cbs. list ton them all on c-span radio on 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area. on your i phone or blackberry,

nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119 or listen on line. >> see more videos on the candidates on c-span's web site.

host: welcome to welcome back jamal simmons and jennifer ruben of the "washington post" blogs right turn. good morning. let's begin with the "washington post." this headline one year to go, one frustrated u.s. electorate. guest: well, there's a good reason to be. the economy is poor. over 70% say we're on the wrong track. congress has approved rating of less than 10% in many polls. so people are dissatisfied clearly. and i think the president is going to have to make the case to the american people that he deserves to be rehired and that is possible but i think it's going to be a tough election year for him. host: we've seen a pivot from the president as he tries to shift blame to republicans and the house of representatives. how sit working?

guest: it seems to be beginning to work right now. the poll numbers tick up a little bit. the congress' numbers are very low. but at the same time, getting to jennifer's point. a second ago you're going to have from the president's perspective they're going to look to make this campaign and election about a choice between barack obama as a president and whoever the republican nominee is as.and their vegas for the future. so the question will be, more so for the president's campaign, do -- you may not be completely with barack obama but you're really going to be unhappy with your republican alternative. host: this headline from the chicago tribune. one year out. pointing that with the 2012 election a year away it is important to keep in mind that conventional wisdom doesn't turn out to be so wise. guest: i think what we've learned is that it's always wrong in the last year or so. we had a bunch of candidates who we thought were going to run on the republican side and they didn't run. we have a bunch of people who

we thought were going to be at the bottom of the polls and they've written risen up and fallen again. like william godeman said hardly anyone knows anything and it's important to keep track on a daily basis, talk to real voters and keep in mind that a lot of information that people glean is not necessarily all that helpful. i make a point in my column at the right turn to point out that for example national polling is really a very limited utility right now. you look back a year ago, you had fred toverpleson or rudy july ni who was at the top and i think it's far more important to look and see in the early states who is doing well to talk to people in those early states to see how they're being received, to see the local coverage in iowa and new hampshire, south carolina, and i think that gives you a better idea where we're going to be headed. host: one of the stories getting a lot of attention cover story of the "new york times" essentially handicapping president obama in 2012. let me sum prize some of the

key points. if the economy, perry or romney. if the economy has turned the corner barack obama wins. guest: maybe. all these predictions and rules hold true until the times they don't and what we remember is in 2008 based upon past history, every numecal equation, every way of looking at this, the prosspect of an african american being elected was zero. it was a 100% chance barack obama would lose. i do think we're in off the campaign for the democrats and for the president. people are looking and see a lot of problems. but i also think the republicans have a field of flawed candidates. and just like george bush in 2004 people were very unhappy with him over the wars, he was able to sort of make the case that john kerry really wasn't the guy you wanted to entrust the country to. the president may be in the same position.

host: one of the other points. voters have short memories. but that can go both ways because the president has had success in capturing and killing bin laden, the success in libya, although took longer than most people expected. how does that portend? guest: i think voters are very selfish and rightly so. they care about their own family, their own economic well being what's going on now and their future. to some extent it is going to be a choice and republicans i think make a mistake if they think they can run just anyone. and in the early states you do see a lot of republicans very concerned about the electability issue. but i think that election campaigns are referendum. and unless the president can show that he is made progress he's going to have a tough election. and we all recall that he said at the beginning of his term that he should judged on the economy and unemployment. and i think that's going to be very problematic for him.

guest: i think she's right the local issues are going to be very important. also commander in chief is, it may not be the defining issue but it's sort of a qualification that you have to meet and if you can't meet the commander in chief threshhold the idea of being elected.is not going to happen. a lot of people want to compare president obama to carter and that's the one thing you can see the difference between two. president carter was mired and president obama has had a lot of successes. so i think on the international stage he presents paketur that americans feel very comfortable with as commander in chief representing us around the world and whoever the republican is is going to have to find a way to maybe not beat that but certainly meet the minimum level of qualifications. host: herman cain joined by going rich, a debate we care

rid live and at the event herman cain told reporters we are getting back on message, end of story. the headline is that herman cain clashes with reporters. at the very end he was asked about the story that broke last week in politico, here's herman cain in houston last night. >> but i did not realize the nature of the media when you are running for president especially when you are moving up in the polls so that has been the biggest surprise because if there is a journalistic standard a lot of them don't follow it and as a result too many people get misinformation and disinformation. so it is the actions and the behavior of the media has been my biggest surprise. i thought -- now, this is probably going to be taken the wrong way but i didn't take political correctness school.

there too many people in the media that are downright dishonest. not all but too many of them do a disservice to the american people. host: last night in houston and this past week you write that he has plainly lost the image of a jovial savvy business executive and points out that he is considering suing politico. guest: i think this is absurd. first, it's a legitimate issue. it goes to his character, it goes to his executive abilities it goes to his credibility. he had a week in which you had to watch every hour on the hour to figure out what the latest story was as he began to evolved and then forgot and then remembered things. it is plainly relevant. and if he thinks that being president of the united states does not go hand in hand with scrutiny of the media i think he chose the wrong profession. i don't think the media has behaved irresponsibly and today , at right turn, your listeners will turn in and look at the

column, i will take some people to task because i think this is legitimate and i think simply to say it's the media's fault is ridiculous, particularly in the story in which, remember, herman cain has essentially conceded most of the points in that original politico story. he was accused of sexual harassment. there were settlement agreements. so i'm not sure what he thinks is irresponsible. if he doesn't like people covering bad things in his past, well, that just goes with the territory. host: one of the points of the story, americans for herman cain, not the official campaign organization, released this web ad late last week. >> and they can't argue with herman cain on the merits. they can't argue with herman cain on policy. so what do they do? >> now we're getting the high tech lynching of a beautiful man, herman cain. rar what is known as the mainstream media goes for the ugliest racial stereo types

they can to attack a black conservative. >> they'll put him down. they can't talk about the issues so they hit. >> i think he needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe. >> i would only assumed that he is either socially ignorant or playing games with folks. >> it's very hard to comment on somebody who is so denied intelligence. >> this is a circus, a national disgrace. it is a high-tech lynching for you wantty blacks who in any way dane to think for themselves. and it is a message that unless you kowtow to old order you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured rather than hung from a tree. host: from americans for herman cain. your reaction. guest: it's despicable.

especially because uff herman cain who throughout his career and candidacy has said race is not something that hodse back african americans. race is not something that has held him back. now to now let people go to this question of race and in fact to invoke it himself is really irresponsible. in the ad it didn't show ann coulter saying the things you said our blacks are better than their blacks. which is also just completely surprising that someone could even utter such a thing in american discourse today as if there's some possession of african americans by either political party or strain. and fimely these questions about misinformation on herman cain brings up as jennifer referenced earlier, the misinformation came from herman cain. he's given at least three different versions of the story. one was he didn't know what they were talking about.

so he has got to take responsibility for himself. you can't blame it on liberal media, on the politico story, on other people. he's got to take responsibility. and certainly as da a candidate if you get past the merits of the story, as a candidate you've got a ten-day head start that somebody is going to come knock you in the face. you've got to be prepared for that and he was not prepared for it at all. and that alone should give people pauds about pause about his qualifications and readieness. host: he ran for the senate in georgia and lost so he's not held elective office but i want to read what your magazine says about herman fisher.

guest: i think it is a fair issue. this goes again to his executive experience. he has touted his credentials as a businessman, executive, problem solver. this week he didn't solve any problems. he made a lot for himself. so i think some people had concerns about the story because a limit number of people interviewed at one association that he worked at, that's fair. but i think the general issue in terms of can he work well with others, how does he react to criticism, i think that's a big issue. he's been criticized more as he's moved up the polls as it should be. and he has not acted well to criticism. when people drew attention to his plan and pointed out flaws, he doesn't respond in a factual way. he says, you're wrong, and moves on. so people who have not been in the public lime light, who don't have that experience don't seem to understand that not only is it necessary but it's desireable to respond to

this. you have to go through a vetting process so that people feel comfortable with you and that they are going to put you in the executeive branch. jamal made a very good point about commander in chief. we're going to have a couple of debates purely on foreign policy and i think you have to clear a bar. they don't expect someone who has been a governor or businessman to have a granular knowledge of the entire world. but unless you can demonstrate how the world operates, you have a general philosophy about foreign policy, i think it's going to be hard to convince the american people that you're a person who can go on the stage with barack obama and convince the american people. host: jennifer, her work has appeared in politico graduate of uc perkly blogs for the "washington post." a limping of "washington post".com is available on our website. jamal simmons is a graduate of moore house college and

harvard, worked for a number of campaigns, also a political commentator. next arlene joining us from orange, massachusetts, democrats line. welcome to the program. kiverageds thank you. i would vote for barack obama because he's trying to do something for the people i can't hear you i've got you turned down. host: you're going to vote for the president? you think he should be reelenthed? caller: yes, i do. guest: there you go. host: let me use that, george condone has this piece tuned out. and they quotes marlin fitswater.

then there are a couple of photographs on the tonight show, on david letterman's program and wondering whether or not people are tuning out this president. guest: i think that is a problem. they invested a lot in the rhetorical skills. he won a big election. he was the underdog and naturally i think they went to the president again and again. but in point in fact in terms of changing people's minetsdz on issues he hasn't been that sugsessful. and now i think we are to the point which he goes out people say it's the president of the united states and go on. i don't think he is making new converts. he may particularly with his new very harsh, very partisan style be bucking up his base and that's why you see the polls pick up just a little bit. he's recovering some of those democrats that have fade aid way but i don't think he's making an effective case to independents who remain the key

to american politics. the "washington post" has a list about the 13 swing states and in those states you're going to have to make the case to a lot of independent voters. talking about florida, iowa, ohio, and i think the obama team is having trouble now trying to put together that path to 270 votes. they can't go through ohio, they're going through virginia that doesn't look so good and i think this is because the president has lost that coalition that he put together so masterfully in 2008. can you remember in the primary he was up against hillary clinton who had blue collar workers, older voters, women. he was able to collect all those people and independents. that's how you win sizeable majorities in presidential politics. that has disintegrateded 57bd he is almost back to that core base that he started with in the primaries in 2007-2008. >> host: one other portion chuck todd quoted asking the president whether or not he was worried about the public not listening to him any more and

marlin fitswater who said the sit come syndrome people do just get tired of you if you say the same thing week in and week out the message doesn't have any meaning behind it. it is just like a sitcom on television you can really love the show and it just disappeared after two or three years. guest: i have to say is one of the best people at the job. in fact when young people become press secretaries and people i give them his book because it's one of the things that i read. so i give him a lot of credit on that. one thing the administration has not done well at all is building a team of -- a bigger cast of characters. seinfeld was a great show but you also liked george and elaine, too. so you've got to build a better cast of characters around the president so people understand. there are very few people in the cabinet that the american people are familiar with. maybe arnie duncan and hillary clinton certainly as secretary of state. but they haven't exposed the cabinet and let the cabinet flourish as characters.

you don't see a lot of people outside the administration who are administration supporters who are able to really have part of the limelight. so barack obama may be michael jordan but people forget michael jordan never won a championship until he had scottie pippin and trest of the cast in that team. the president needs more people around him that can carry some of this weight and go around the country and have enough star power. i was in the clinton administration in 1996 and worked for commerce secretary canter and we spent a lot of that year going around doing business events, talking opening offices doing things that garppedrd attention around the country for the administration. which may not have helped but a half a percent here or there but that counts in the whole selection. host: the sports analogy. jennifer ruben and jamal simps. good morning. caller: good morning.

i think jennifer and jamal are living in a vacuum. when it gets time for the debate, the american people are going to find out from the republicans what the true state of our country is in. president obama might be great on a teleprompter but he's not being honest with the american people and telling them exactly how far these deficits are out of control. the democrats know that all these ponsie schemes that the democrats have come up with have finally come and collapsed on their own weight and obama is going to do so bad in the debate it's going to be another jimmy carter he's going to go down in flames. host: thanks for the call. guest: well, there you go. well, listen, the caller i think is mistaken if he thinks that i think that barack obama is going to get reelected. i don't. i think the republicans have an excellent choice and an

excellent chance. that said you cannot beat something with nothing. you have to have a credible alternative. and i think that's why there's so many republicans that have put stock in electability. part of the problem that barack obama is going to have this time around that many democrats don't want to be seen with him. we've already seen this in missouri and mccaskle the senator up for reelection had another appointment. you're going to see a lot of scheduling appointments this time out that's because senators who are up, house members as well in very competitive seats see the president as a big bith of a drag on the ticket. that's why you see some distancing from some of the president's measures. they have to make the case to indntsd. and if those don't like what the president is doing they have to show some space, so i think one of the problems is he might have had many gover northerns senators coming around to have that critical mass as jamal said but many of

those people are going to want to campaign on their own. host: james has this tweet guest: well, if special election house seats were determinate for electoral success the democrats would have done very well in 2010. we have won a series of threshhold elections leading in and got our clocks cleaned on election day. i don't think those are true indicators, not in a presidential year. because the campaign is so much more more overwhelming and in fact in the house have a lot more people who are dependent -- a lot more democrats dependent upon the president doing well to help them have a fighting chance in order to win. swinging back to eddie's one point that he made about some of the things that democrats have done. i think he's simplet if iing this. we all know that part of the reason we're in this mess because when bim clinton left office we had surpluses, george bush went to war without having

a way to fipance it and medicare part d. all those things should have happened but the question is, at what point you've got to go to the country and level and say here are the big projects and we've got to pa v a way to pay for it. right now we have democrats whether eist the super committee or others saying that the way to handle our problems is to do three things. we've got to deal with entitlements, raise taxes on people, you've got to figure out where to do that but taxes have to be a part of that and we have to cut spending. every bipartisan group has said that. the gang of six. but for some reason the republicans in the house are just completely unwilling to even broach the question of taxes and it's almost impossible for us to solve this problem without some taxes. host: i ask this next question in terms of historical context because we did an interview with former president jimmy

carter and he indicated that he was able to campaign across the country before the early primaries really under the radar without a lot of media scrutiny. he was able to make mistakes and learn from those mistakes. it's different in 2011 because part you tube and the number of debates. c-span is covering these candidates all the time. and i mentioned that because last friday rick perry in new hampshire with this appearance continues to get a long speculation and attention. we want to show it to you one more time. >> this is such a cool state. come on, live free or die. you know? you've got to love that. right? i come from a state where they have this little place called the alamo and they declared victory or death. we're kind of into those slogans. live free or die, victory or death.

guest: it's never good for a candidate when you're the subject of a saturday night live spoof. and that was spoofed last night on saturday night with a rick perry on the news segment. i think going to a central problem he has he's not a very liked candidate. . h

postcode your reaction to that ad? guest: i think the speech in new hampshire gets way over covered. from time to time, it happens. those of us on television would love to go back and redo some television appearances if we could.

rick perry -- his first introduction to the american public was in the debate. nobody thought people were paying attention to the debates. in those debates, he did not perform very well. it is going to be hard for him -- those first performances lowers your gpa. he can make it up. he is certainly proving it with the amount of money that he is raising. he is not going to go down without a fight. the romney campaign has to figure out how to handle rick perry. he is going to wage a very pointed campaign for the rest of the time. host: do talk about fundraising. it is called --

at the end of the third quarter in 2007, republican candidates raised about $230 million. this year, the field has raised $85 million. everyone says the fundraising is more difficult this year. let's go to colorado, independent line. caller: i have some advice. this has to do with the fact that obama's a prue rating is about 50%. -- approval rating is about 50%. he comes up with good decisions, he is courageous, he is forceful, he makes a difference. it is the congress that has thwarted every effort to. they are the ones with the 10%

approval rating. i think it is funny that people are distancing themselves from obama. are they trying to protect their 10% approval rating? we have to focus on removing the people and congress. someone that is representing the people of the united states. the tea party has their hearts in the right place, but they voted in the wrong people. what is missing in the conversation of the republicans? the biggest industry in the united states is the financial industry. the deregulation destroyed american wealth. if a republican gets in as

president, we are faced with that industry favored more than ever has been. i appreciate c-span. host: let me take her comment and turn it into a question. there is this from john boehner, he sat down with susan davis. looking back at his one year after the republicans took over the house. guest: the president's rating is a lot lower than the two%. -- a 50%. on a serious note, there are a few things going on. if the president does get better rating on foreign policy, it does not mean that he is not small marble. we have iran, roszak -- he's not

invulnerable. we have iran, russia. it is not that he is impervious to criticism, it is not nearly as bad as it is on the economic front. the problem that many democrats and many analysts are guilty of is that barack obama is not going to run against john boehner or mitch mcconnell. he is going to run against mitt romney or maybe somebody else. those people are not tied to congress either. those people will be running against washington as well. they will turn that around and they will say, you said you could come in and work with republicans. now you are admitting you cannot. it is very helpful in getting the basic riled up. the caller has the talking points down well. i do not know if any political

-- presidential race, that carries over. you get back to the fundamentals. when the economy is pour, the president has the harder road to hoe. host: this is from today's new york daily news. you can see this picture from a debate with mitt romney, barack obama. in the middle -- and independent. how likely is that? guest: it is not as likely as i would like to be. if we had an independent candidate, the president what when. -- would win. >> even if it was an independent to the left?

guest: this is a question -- the energy behind an independent candidate will come from the right. particularly if mr. romney is the nominee. -- miche romney is the nominee. i think the president would do very well with an independent candidate and the race. the question about what people are looking for any leader. they are looking for the strength of leadership. what is making the president's poll numbers go up right now, the strength of character that heat is crafting in the public eye lately. he is -- he has a very consistent messages about jobs right now. the republicans are -- the president is talking about jobs

and the economy every day. for the first time in his presidency, those of us who were sitting outside of the white house can tell you today with the president will be talking about a week from today. that is very helpful. since then, what we have also seen as an during independent executive orders around education, home ownership, the economy. those things are very helpful in the public eye. host: part twitter page -- our twitter page. we will go to mike, joining us next. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i am surprised you left your panel bring obama's teleprompter with them. please let me finish.

to say that the mainstream at the lead in is media it is not dishonest is ridiculous. that is ridiculous. there are radical, left-wing, and they have an agenda. i could say a lot of things. i would like to get the panelists to answer honestly and to think about it. mwai -- why was obama's record -- why was that not instigated? i would like for them to be honest. thank you for taking my call. host: mike, can you stay on the

line? guest: i am not one to deny that there is a democratic bias. most reporters are democrats. if you look at the news pages, the opinion sections, you'll find that. i say to my conservative friends, get over it. ronald reagan ran for president -- there was no twitter, fox news, no talk radio. in the end, and he was able to get his message out. conservatives have gotten into this pattern about complaining about the mainstream media. but it is not going to help them. the rest of the country does not care if the media is biased. in terms of the examples that the caller gave, what difference does it make if john edwards was

not covered properly? we now have a presidential race. herman cain has issues. let's evaluate those and we can send the media to journalism jail. conservatives get to absorb. what happens is that day become so knee-jerk reflective, they adopt positions and candidate that are not in their interest. we sell this for a long time with gov. rick perry. a lot of mainstream criticism because of his debate performance and conservatives said, he is just being put upon by the mainstream media. after a while, they said, he is really bad. and a daughter of rep. conservatives make the mistake of making -- and they got over it. conservatives make the mistake of making the media the object of their frustrations. conservatives should be thrilled that this cannot now before a

primary vote started. this is the best possible thing because they want the strongest possible candidate. he did not get that without an aggressive media. postcode newsweek magazine out with a story about john add -- host: newsweek magazine out with a story about john edwards. let's go back to the caller. i think he hung up. caller: good morning. i think the republicans are going for the house and senate more than they are the presidency. they do not have a super strong presidential candidate and had been bouncing all over the place. after barack obama got elected, they were floating out there in

space and they got locked up with the tea party -- latched up with the tea party and then they started the filibusters and blocking everything that was trying to be done. i think they are the ones that of the real partisans in this race. i would like to say that. i do not know if you guys believe that or not. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think the republicans are the partisan standing in the way. going back to the earlier caller. fox news is such a big presence, the largest cable channel on cable television. they did not break the john edwards story. the notion that everybody is in the same boat together, i do not know if it flies.

these are the stories that come up. the media will find a way into it. that is the thing about running for president. it is hard. i want to say that to herman cain or some of the other candidate. the reason why people do not win -- you have to be really prepared for whatever is thrown at you. usually for the american public, it is not the scandal. i think people are very forgiving. the question is, what do you do when adversity strikes? how do you handle the adversity? that is the test. that is the kind of nugget that people are looking to find out. host: you wrote that mitt romney has found his inner paul ryan.

here is part of what the former massachusetts governor had to say about entitlement, spending, and the budget. >> upon taking office, i will cut discretionary spending and cement a budget that -- and submit a budget that returns spending to the pre-obama level. [applause] as i said at the citadel a few weeks ago, i will reverse president obama's massive defense cuts. [applause] any savings that we define in the core defense budget, will redirect to rebuild our navy and air force, to at active-duty soldiers and sailors. [applause] and to provide the care that our veterans deserve. guest: mitt romney had begun to get some criticism that he was

not being concrete, specific enough, not bold enough. he was playing all of the ankles. -- angles. the campaign was smart enough to listen to that and to look out the field and say, listen, if we're going to win, we want to win with an agenda. we want to win with specifics. so the republican party is united. what they did is they went back to a lot of what paul ryan had done, and others. he put together a plan that is rather extraordinary. he finally had a presidential candidate who sets forth exactly what he would like to do on social security. in the past, mitt romney has talked about the possibility of raising the retirement age are going to end indexing system. here he says, i will do these

things. he is on record. we have, a long way. he was not be sent by -- this has become part of the american conversation of. -- conversation. on medicare, this was the most specific we have gotten from a candidate so far. he is taking paul ryan's idea about premium support, you are given an amount of money to help you with a health care plan. you can do a private plan or you can use that same voucher and use it to stay within the medicare system. that was slightly less controversial. it was one that newt gingrich suggested early on. it has in mind record in terms of a reform agenda. -- it has some on record in

terms of a reform agenda. it will help him in the long run. i also think that this week of zero weeks, it magnifies this tremendous difference between those candidates who are caught up in their own nonsense and who are really sort of struggling to maintain a level of credibility and those candidates who are out there talking about the issues. one of the recent new gingrich is moving up in the polls is that -- reason that newt gingrich is moving up in the polls is that he is talking about the issues. voters react to that. i do not think they plan to roll this speech about the same way that herman cain was having his problems, but serendipity takes the charge. i think it's benefited them. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span the radio. jamal simmons is here at the

table. and jennifer rubin, who now blogs for the washington post. caller: president obama is trying to create jobs and i have been wondering if the republicans want obama out, why don't they just pass his jobs plan? then it will heard him and he will lose the election. if you get the 13 states, you are going to win. what does that state for -- what does that say for the rest of the states? host: what about ever averse strategy? -- what about a reverse strategy? guest: i am sure the president would love that strategy.

it would give him the chance to get some things done. i want to talk about the early -- sunday's i wished i was a republican. it is so -- some days i wish i was a republican. it is so easy to be a republican. governing is a little more complicated than that. when you look at the romney plan, they are some complicated things. he wants to block grant medicare -- medicaid. he wants to give vouchers for medicare. it is something that people are not really ready to take. he wants to raise the retirement age for social security. if you are in need a worker in north carolina, you have to work two or three more years before you get your social security benefits. he wants to cut across the board out of domestic spending.

$100 million worth of foreign aid. i wonder if you would include israel and that -- and that. there are several questions about what is we do with the fine points. host: along those lines, we have newt gingrich -- obama has added $4 trillion in debt. at one point you need to cut spending? we do have a record deficit. guest: we absolutely have to cut spending. the democrats have offered that plan. every bipartisan group of people have done that. the president agree to that last year. democrats have never said, did not cut spending. if we are going to cut spending and deal with entitlements, we

have to also deal with taxes. host: steny hoyer is our guest following this program. we asked him about the 2012 elections and the house of representatives. >> let me say why i am confident we will take back the house. the independents are looking for solutions. they are looking for common sense. what they are seeing is that is not what has been brought to the congress by the republican leadership. they have brought us to the brink of default and they are not addressing the growth in our economy and jobs. they will not think -- they think that is not the kind of policy they want to pursue. we have wonderful candidate oliver this country.

republicans said in some 60 districts that were either one by president obama court by john kerry -- or by john kerry. host: there could be another change in the house of representatives. guest: i do not think so. mitt romney went through each of the items that you indicated and he did not say, i am going to cut social security. the methodology is that -- there are only a few ways to fix this problem. these are a couple of them. jamal simmons also says you cannot fix this problem without raising taxes. sure, you can. that is a policy choice.

what the republicans have been willing to do, suggest tax reform. here is worried there could be some agreement on the super committee -- here is where there could be some agreement on the super committee. just about everyone in washington is talking about the same things. lowering rates, broadening the base, getting rid of loopholes. republicans to not want to raise rates without -- do not want to close loopholes without giving those rates down. most republicans will say this is going to be economically helpful. it will be pro-growth and it will stimulate more economic activity. i personally think that one of the missed opportunities in this entire year, if you go back to the beginning of the republican congress, the president did not take the opportunity to pullout something like tax reform.

that could have been a bipartisan achievement. republicans dodged a bullet. imagine if president obama said, i do not like the whole thing, but i'm going to take it. republicans would of had a war on their side. they would about a lot of fights about this. the president has really ducked these issues. he has not put forth a social security plan. he is not put forth a medicare plan, other than obamacare. the president, in retrospect, might have done much better to adopt one of these bipartisan plans. i do not think he can go back and do it now. democrats will not support those plans because they do cut entitlements, they do limits discretionary spending. we find ourselves in an election in which there is a choice. i think this is what american politics is about.

it is about making choices. the parties are in different places going into 2012. they will have a choice, but i would say that from the republican perspective, mitt romney is so not conservative that he almost did the bill as this middle of the road manager. i think we will see more of that if he wins the nomination. host: we have a minute or two left. susan is our last caller. caller: i want to address a couple of chang's. the gentleman says it is going to be great for obama to run -- i want to address a couple of things.

the republicans have 15 bills sitting in the senate that harry reid will not bring for a vote because we have several bad democrats that will not vote for them. they are afraid of not being reelected. he knows that they could pass because democrats will not to vote for them. not one democrat voted for obama's budget. they are scared to death. that is why nothing is being done. harry reid is absolutely holding up the vote on 15 bills that have been sent there. true job bills, not another stimulus like obama is trying to put through. theyre doing it because are so afraid. obama needs that money to pay off the unions and the teacher'' unions and all the unions. he needs to pay them off. just like the first stimulus

bill. just got the basic republican plan is to cut spending and cut regulations. we have the demand side problem in our economy. we do not have enough spending on consumer companies in order to drive the economic activity right back up. there are only a few ways to do that. if companies are not going to spend the money, it it will be government spending a lot more. the democrats have been pushing to find a way to do that. the republicans refuse to go along with it. i know people complain about the president's stimulus package before. but millions of jobs have been created. we are not in an economic depression and we will not go back into a double-dip recession.

host: is there one thing you are looking for? guest: weather herman cain can get back on message. -- whether herman cain can get back on message. there is going to be a debate on economic issues and we will see weather -- whether candidate like rick perry have regained some flooding. i think that is what i will be looking at this week -- regain some flooding. i think that is what i will be looking at this week. guest: we will see if anyone will be able to step up to the plate and be an alternative to mitt romney. host: thank you both for joining us on this sunday morning. many of the debates taking place this week can be heard on c-span radio.

we are keeping track of what is on later today. good morning, nancy. >> beginning at noon, you can hear replays of five network tv talk shows. we began with "meet the press." jon huntsman, bill richardson, and haley barbour. at 1:00, "this week" with john boehner. >> every person i worked with, i had a rejection letter. it was kind of cool. >> in his nonfiction, he questions the motivation and morality of brilliant people. his account of mark zuckerberg and the creation of facebook was adopted -- adapted for the screen in the "social

network." it is your chance to ask the questions. >> see more videos of the websitees at c-span's for campaign 2012. >> you cannot understand where his ideas came from unless you knew what was happening around him.

unless you note that -- you would not understand what his revolt was. >> this weekend, on booktv, in love and capital, mary gabriel looks at the life of car marks. -- carl marx. live sunday, three hours with -- booktv, every weekend on c- span2. >> you cannot understand where his ideas came from unless you knew what was happening around him. the line that some may take offense to. religion is the opium of the

people. unless you know that keynes said they were the emissaries of god, he would not understand what is result -- his revolt was about it. >> this weekend, very gabriel looks at the life of carl marx, and the revolution that changed the world. and sunday, three hours of "in- depth." find the complete schedule all mind at -- online at booktv.org. >> this is the formal part, spelling out the declaration for candidacy. been all it needs is your

signature. >> i can do that. this is the filing fee of $1,000. we do this every four years. >> you have a great secretary of state. you have done a great job. we appreciate your leadership. we will make sure that new hampshire remains first in the nation. it is a responsibility and honored that new hampshire richly deserves. i am happy to be part of that process. >> the new hampshire primary is set for january 10 and you can follow campaign 2012 online at the c-span video library.

the c-span video library, it is washington, your way. >> when i got into public and started selling my book, every person i worked with, i had a rejection letter from. it was kind of occult -- it was kind of cool. he would go to a meeting in they would say, we love you -- we love your stuff. >> it filed a group of students to win millions in las vegas. his latest tracks a possible astronaut candidate as he steals a an asset safe. it is your chance to ask the questions. today at noon on booktv on c- span2.

>> every person i worked with, i had a rejection letter from. it was kind of cool. i would go to a meeting, ed wood said, i love your staff. i would say, what about this? >> his account of mark zucker burke was adapted for the scr een. it is your chance to ask the questions. live, sunday, november 6 at noon. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome sheila krumholz. let's get right to the issue of superpacs.

guest: citizens united was the supreme court decision which allowed unlimited contributions from unlimited sources going to be spent on direct advocacy for or against kansas -- candidates. this had drawn wide the doors on spending. in 2010, we sell at 338% increase over the previous midterm election in outside spending. much of that was undisclosed. there were a lot of it -- there was a lot more money coming in from donors that was completely secret. we expect the spending to increase to another level altogether in this presidential cycle. we expect to see even greater secrecy of donors. host: unlike a traditional political action committee,

superpacs cannot donate money directly for political candidates. but they can influence a race. best coat that is correct. they cannot contribute to a candidate or a party. that could -- that is not a direct contribution into the process. it is spending outside to influence. they are running political ads and other kinds of spending. it is advocating a candidate posset defeat or election. -- candid's defeat or election. they will be doing the mudslinging for the cabinets. it is really -- they cannot control. these are independent organizations, but they are an

extension of the campaign. host: there are 173 different host: there are 173 different superpacs for the upcoming elections. guest: it is because of the increased stakes. the presidential cycle. we see a growth and outside spending in each presidential cycle as compared to the previous midterm. there was an additional growth spurt by the white house after the shellacking they took in november. to fight fire with fire. we cannot take a knife to a gun fight so we're forced to create our own way of superpac to

counter the work of american crossroads. that is the most famous superpac. host: and the website is opensecrets.org. the phone numbers are on your screen. citizens united was not a decision that allowed anything. it was allowed before a law was put in place blocking spending. guest: perhaps they are speaking about wisconsin right to life. i am not sure at understand the question. wisconsin right to life was another landmark decision that took place in 2007, allowing took place in 2007, allowing contributions and unregulated

contributions going to outside groups that are spending money and identifying a federal candidate. in that case, they identified senator fine gold. it was deemed that they were allowed to run those ads despite their airing in the 30 or 60-day window. window. the beginning of the opening and citizens united knocked down court limits on direct corporates and union treasury contributions going to these groups that were running advertising directly expressing the desire to defeat or elect a candidate. this was the beginning. speech now was the official decision following citizens united, which allowed for the creation of superpacs.

this was a decision that was brought by speech now. an organization that was promoting their ability to -- as long as they did not spend directly on behalf or contribute directly to candidates, they argued they should be able to receive money directly from corporations and spend it independently. post citizens united, that decision was sanctioned. then followed a the creation of independent exposure -- independent expenditure-only committees. all you had to do was filed a letter. host: to go back to the callers earlier point. earlier point. guest: you can limit

contributions, you can not limit spending. this is unlimited and unregulated spending by outside groups. all we need to do is to report as superpac to the federal election commission. these groups also have this nonprofit counterparts, which allows them to offer any debtor the option of either being public and allowing or to be completely under the radar. and raised money secretly through their nonprofit. through their nonprofit. host: we have a different number for this segment. guest: as long as we have money

in politics, which has how it has been since the beginning of our country's founding, there will be this cat and mouse game following the money and seeing how it is being used and if limits are put in place, to make sure that disclosure is provided. as with various laws put in place due out the last century, but the supreme court decision allowing has to have that constitutional limits -- whenever we have these measures put in place, there is always going to be a -- groups trying to find the way around the

disclosure. i think is kind of a two-step program and process of finding the loopholes. and then dealing with that. either with reforms or tightening the rules, what have you. host: sheila krumholz is our guest. caller: host: let me go back to the issue of transparency. something that teddy roosevelt talked about. is there a mechanism to track the money? guest: it there is a mechanism after watergate, the federal election commission was created. we have this agency whose mission is mandated to gather their reports from the

candidates and parties and to allow the public to see where the money is coming from. there continue to be assaults at all levels of government against the public's right to know who these players are that want to shape the outcome of elections. after citizens united and the speech now decision, we have a challenge before us. we can see where the money is coming from four superpac. there has been mediocre bad disclosure and we may not necessarily a note in every case. we have no way of viewing the massive sums of money going to their nonprofit counterparts. that is every bit as influential

in some cases. host: when he or she is running for office, counsel, -- pop up that they have no idea that it is coming. it may help or hurt a candidate, but it does change the strategy. guest: they are now fighting this kind of invisible goliath. they do not know when they will drop in and and spend millions of dollars in a competitive race. it may be far more than the candidate could raise or spend. they might do it in the 11th hour of the campaign, one is to like to respond. furthermore, there is the other possibility that they do know who was planning to raise and dollars should o they not agree with their

legislative agenda and vote the way of the special interests. that is even more concerning. these outside groups, by virtue of a threat, they could realistically make good on, they could relate have great influence -- they could really have influence on how policy is crafted. caller: good morning. i find this entire discussion about campaign finance laws and how people get around them to be very frustrating. you are all discussing the symptoms. host: we are having a couple of problems in the studio. we cannot hear your question. then they go back to the issue of who is raising the money. raising about $26.5 million spending.

we are talking anywhere from 20 to $30 million. guest: we hear reports from the groups themselves that they are raising and spending far more than what has been reported. they need not report, at this time, -- it is a strange situation. many of these last reported on july 31. this would cover the first six months of the year. cannot report again until january 31. -- they need not report again until january 31. they're telling reporters that they have spent -- for american crossroads, $20 million. on express advocacy and issue advocacy. we will not get access to that spending report until we get closer to the primaries.

the next official filing deadline is not until january 31. that is a weakness of our system. there is this big gap of time where they need not tell us about their spending. american crossroads predicts they both raised and spent $240 million. that is enormous. we have documented just over $300 million by all outside interest groups for spending in the last midterm election cycle. just one organization is spending $240 million on its own in the cycle, it gives you a sense of what we are expecting to see. there will be 8 major -- there will be major spending this cycle. host: if you or a corporation or

individual and you want to contribute to a candidate for congress, there are restrictions. what about the amount of money that he or she or corporations can contribute to any of these superpacs? guest: superpacs must disclose their donors. if a donor wants to give to a nonprofit, a social welfare organization, there are other types of nonprofits, they can do so anonymously. that is protected. it is kind of a coalition of strange bedfellows that are defending the right for an individual to give anonymously to a nonprofit. that might include the naacp as

well as the nra, the aclu, the sierra club. there is a broad spectrum. an individual can give to the the nonprofit affiliate of a superpac. superpacs, as per the free speech decision, must disclose their donors and their spending to the federal election commission. host: is there a potential of another supreme court decision that could take up the question of weather or not they need to be read iraq -- better regulated? guest: it would fall to congress to tighten the disclosure rules. that was the primary purpose of

the disclose act was to get to disclosure of the donor that are contributing money that would be spent on independent expenditures for and against candidates. i think there is the center for politics is among the organizations that would urge the congress to close that disclosure loophole, to provide the public with the access to know where that money is coming from that is going to directly influence and shape the elections. there is far less likelihood that there is going to be anything done about these donors to the nonprofit groups at large. there are others that are involved in pushing the irs to tighten up their regulation and -- regulation of tax-exempt organizations. there are different ways you

could take it. at a minimum, there is great support for just access to the information about where the money is coming from. guest: i want to follow-up on that point. you can check it out at opensecrets.org. how much money is being spent on advertising? guest: independent expenditures can be done for any purpose. much of it is going to run political ads, that is very expensive, but it could be done for other types of drives that are pushing for it expressly advocating defeat or election of a candidate. there other types of spending

that are more nonpartisan. get-out-the-vote drives or research and polling data is not express advocacy. it would not be deemed an independent expenditure. the lectionary communication -- communication is also reported to the commission. this identifies a candidate in the window 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the election. if it is run by a nonprofit, they need not disclose the donors better given to those campaigns, but we do see how much is being spent. host: what can we expect in 2012? guest: i am looking for movement on the disclosure to reinforce that to gain access to more data. i would hope that there is an

effort galvanizing by nonprofit groups. a strong coalition across the ideological spectrum to defend the right to know which are the organizations that are spending money to directly influence the election. we think this is going to be a -- we saw just over $300 million in the previous cycle. host: sheila krumholz, et thank you for educating our audience for the new dynamics in campaign 2012. rouble continue the conversation tomorrow morning. this week, and it marks the veterans week. we will be talking with richard mills of the u.s. marine corps to talk about the budget cuts on the impact of the marine corps. tomorrow morning, molly ball, a

political reporter. we're taking a look at what manufacturers need to do to stay competitive. that is all tomorrow -- that is all tomorrow morning on the "washington journal." have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here is a lineup of our programs today on c-span. on newspapers, steady hoyer -- steny hoyer talks about why he is opposed to a balanced budget amendment. the latest testimony to the joint deficit reduction committee. >> jni