in decision. ther that, we'll talk about 2012 gop presidential election. later, we will talk about the book "50 jobs in 50 states." "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: the political announcement this sunday -- a major endorsement in new hampshire. they say newt gingrich for president. one newspaper endorses him and the presidential primary. this is a little bit from the editorial.

"the manchester-union leader" divorcing newt gingrich. he will be here live at 8:30 to explain the endorsement and take your calls. that is a big political story this morning. we will spend the next 40 minutes talking about a newspaper headline that is all over the world now. as to do with the apparent nato strike that has killed at least two dozen pakistani troops, possibly more. "the new york times"has this had lied. headline.

here are the phone lines -- in this story --

a nato spokesman as saying that allied air strikes possibly cause the casualties but an investigation had been ordered to determine the cause. in h"the hill" paper --

there is a lot more in the papers here in washington and around the world that we will bring you in these 40 minutes but we want to get your reaction to what you have heard. lakeland, fla., a democrat, good morning. caller: hello and thanks for cspan. looking at what you just read, to me, there needs to be more cooperation between the pakistan government and nato. you probably wouldn't have these issues if you had the cooperation. you're going to have friendly fire situations but they need to make sure they cooperate and work with them to try to make sure you identify where troops are located and where the operations are held between the two entities. jets as are you can reduce these things. the way of looks now is there is

a situation pakistani government is not fully cooperate because they have issues because they don't want us to be there or whatever the case may be. they are resistant as far as cooperating and they need to make sure that all the operations are coordinated between the two governments. host: here is the headline at "the drudge report" caller: the is not an appropriate response. you have a situation where you were supposed to be working together to try to reach an objective but you find yourself having in fighting. that is where you have tension between the two governments causing these problems. that is one of the things that seems to be the issue. i'm a retired military officer and that is one of the things i realized.

when i was in desert storm in iraq. when you can walk the line between those two things, you will be okay. host: here is a headline in "the new york post" -- we have a call from alexandria, va., independence -- caller: good morning. i am trying to understand how this is not the absolute worst thing that could happen. host: tells more about your thoughts. caller: [inaudible]

there is actual follow-through of how it was coming through. from blake from phoenix on the republican line -- are you there? i think we lost him. let's try d.c., good morning to you. cwhat is your reaction to this story? caller: in any type of -- from a strategic standpoint, you have to treat this as a fratricide scenario. it really needs to be looked at from an interior/x terrier perspective and how this colossal mistake could take place. that is relative to u.s.- pakistan relations, this is like throwing a cinderblock for

someone's window. there is a potential for this to in flam the pakistani population particularly in the major cities and along the western border with afghanistan. it is just huge burden somebody. put their foot in it. this could be a mistake but there has to be something that explains how something at this level loss of life took place. host: what is the impact, do you think, of relations? one analyst says this will be catastrophic. caller: i fear that is correct. i cannot see -- on the streets of pakistan relative to hear -- this feels and looks like a completely over act of aggression whether it is that or

a mistake. that remains to be seen. host: thanks for calling. here is the headline in the new york "daily news." there is a story on the web from "the guardian" as this headline -- we are getting a reaction to this apparent nato strike under investigation, killing at least 24 pakistani troops and some reports say it is more than that. it will take some time to sort that outray is on the line from

pittsburgh, independent. caller: morning. it is amazing how every time there is a strike with one of and a hat thats militant, it is a u.s. killed. this is a big mistake and now it is nato. the administration does not want to take credit for this one. i wonder why. these are u.s. forces, not nato. host: jacksonville, florida, good morning. hello, jeff? caller: i think the united states gets blamed for everything so it doesn't matter -- it does not matter what happens or who did it. i think everybody is intimidated. if we have to go over there, we should not have to restrain from

[inaudible] and that is the only thing they understand is violence. host: will continue to take your calls and you can post your comments on our facebook page. there is also twitter. here is one tweet -- \ we have perrry from marshall, virginia. caller: that is terry. the pakistanis have never been truthful with us. if they had, we might have known the troops were there.

osama bin laden was in pakistan and get killed, right? host: keeper going. caller: as long as he was there, they acted like they did not know. this could be part of their government's fault and that will use that to try to make it seem like we are the bad guys and we're trying to do what is right. host: here is the "washington post" headline.

they twitter message goes out to the president -- drew, spartanburg, south carolina, independent, go ahead caller: this just further highlights the breakdown in communications with pakistan and the u.s. there was a recent article in "the atlantic monthly." . underlie the complexity of our relationship with pakistan. isi has shot multiple times and is the first time the military has been in the wrong place at the wrong time there was talk about ground fighting before the attacks.

we don't have all the details on what actually occurred on the ground. it is way too fast to jump to any conclusions before we get all the facts. host: there is a little bit to the point in the "the washington post." they said the incident

that is one of the versions. tallahassee, florida, republican, good morning. are you there? in miami, fla., are you there? good morning. caller: if we have to declare war against pakistan, let's do it. that seems like every other week somebody is dying in pakistan. there is some kind of drone killing somebody. why don't we declare war on them? if somebody would come and harm our troops along the border, [inaudible] you see the outrage. we have to be careful on how we

approach to this. we should declare war on pakistan. [inaudible] host: that image we just got in " the new york times"he was of a police officer guarding trucks after pakistan closed the border crossing on saturday. just below this photo, is a map explanting the basic area of where this has happened. kankakee, ill., independent -- caller: you all are doing a great job on c-span.

there is nothing like cspan to find out what is really happening out there. we need double agents but we don't need them. we have to be very, very careful and we need to bring in some real brains. etta's such a simple thing but it is so difficult sometimes -- it is is a difficult thing but it is so difficult sometimes to see who we can trust. we need them. we definitely need them. cincinnati on to the republican line. what is your reaction to this story? caller: no matter what the headlines say if it is a nato attack or not, this is another point of aggression that they are taking against the u.s. which i think signifies that the pakistani government is looking

for another reason to go against u.s. policy. it still seems like a u.s. aggression and highlights relations that no matter what is happening over there, relations are still much good -- are still not good. host:"miami herald" headline -- san luis obispo, california,

good morning. caller: my comment is that once again it sounds like a bunch of men and war. we have a country with a lot of problems that are totally ignored. i never hear about -- i live out west and in 1971 we passed a law called the free-roaming law. the department of interior is totally corrupt and we never hear about it on the news. they have stolen most of our public lands for privately owned welfare cattle. they destroyed our west, our water. you see these dust storms -- host: can you get us back to the subject at hand? caller: is my subjects. we have a country here. i don't live in pakistan. i want to see my problems here covered and i want to get the heck out of these countries.

we have all kinds of problems here. that is my problem is that apparently, who wants to be over there all the time? we have problems here and i would like to see them reported on. one problem is the horrific cruelty going on to our wildlife and the destruction of our public lands. by ken salazar and the department of interior with obama's blessing variant host: let's go to orlando, fla., independent. what is your reaction and your thoughts about the future of u.s.-pakistan relations? caller: everything that has happened over there, it has been shrouded in mystery. from the cia agent and everything that has happened, you see part of the story and i

think there is a lot more. my thought is that this is also so shrouded in mystery. we will probably not hear the whole story about everything host: what does that mean to you? caller: if you have two kids and they are fighting, you don't know what they are fighting about almost. we basically know the reason but we don't know the exact reason when it breaks down host: thank you for calling. back to " the new york times" --

the relationship is on a slippery slope and this is as close as you can get to a rupture. fort lauderdale, fla., republican, good morning. caller: i asked why they don't have a conservative line but you have every other line. do you know where that is? host: are breaking them down by party in this case the go ahead and make your comment. caller: people in this country can register as a conservative. host: i have and express yourself. caller: why is everyone surprised and outraged?

if the fight was on right here, which america is part of the global battle field, if that happened here, i am sure americans would be outraged. the administration is more worried about running around the country taking over america than trying to fix the problems going on. why to my left hand, not my right hand. host: here's a look at the bbc web site -- the nato chief has written to

the pakistan prime minister. he says this is unacceptable and deplorable. another twitter message -- framingham, mass., a democrat, good morning. caller: i have been listening to cspan @ and watching it since the very first day a long time ago. as a democrat, your previous caller does make a good point. you could split up the phone calls not only as by party but

may be as liberal-conservative. they are are a lot of people that do not go along party lines or may not consider themselves independents. that is just a suggestion host: that is something we will take up. thank you for the idea. caller: my response to this -- there is no surprise. we have been killing pakistanis for months and years with drones and this is an act of war. the previous republican got it right partially. if that happened in new jersey and a drone from pakistan had 25 guys there, we would be throwing atomic weapons around. it is incredibly wasteful and unbelievable we are there for 10 years, twice the length of time of world war two and we have got nothing accomplished.

we should be spending our money here instead of wasting our money there. host: let's here from ohio, independent. caller: we are in the bacyrus, ohio. pakistan is blaming us. the problem is, pakistan has to look at themselves. they cannot control their own country with all the people in their country wreaking haioc. if they have people on their side of the border they cannot control and firing at the u.s. military people, we have to fire back. they need to stop playing both sides of the fans and control their own country. they need to take the blame on themselves. host: tim in maryland, cecil

county, republican, good morning. caller: i would like to say? served -- that my brother served 28 years. i am glad he got out of the army. i don't know if he would made another two years as crazy as it is over there. i agree with our presence there. if the united states came out of the picture in pakistan and afghanistan, if we did not make their presence known over there in asia, think of what would have happened after 9/11. what would have gotten destroyed or contaminated with chemical warfare? i understand there are many issues in this country but in order to keep this country safe, we need to be where we are at. yes, there is wasteful spending

from the $100,000 turtle crossing in florida to the missiles shooting over their endlessly. we are there for a reason. many of these callers don't understand the politics. i support our united states military and i support our presence there. i also support, hungry and homeless in this country. i am a republican and go newt gingrich. host: is another photograph on the web. lots more in the newspapers this morning. "the baltimore sun"has this story --

the sanctions would include a travel ban by senior syrian officials i called on commercial flights to the country. that is according to the arab league documents. virginia beach, you are on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: good morning, i think we need an entirely different perspective on what is happening in the world in general. somebody from occupied wall street needs to come on and say what is causing all these problems in the world in general. the united states has 900 military bases worldwide. these things have been planned 10 and 20 years.

the united states just decided to kill 25 pakistani soldiers. we seem to be in places where we think we can win. we don't do this stuff in north korea or china or in russia. the only thing we seem to be making now is bombs and going in and making war on countries and stuff. it is a big smokescreen. the world needs to go in a different direction. we have people in egypt demonstrating. it is all over the world. people are waking up. they are getting sick and tired of no jobs, losing their homes, losing everything. the only solution client and

obama have is to bomb libya, until gaddafi -- kill gaddafi. war is not the solution to the problem. we need new leaders. host: this says it seems like a contrived event. it is an elaborate bluff that could blow up in everyone's faces. another e-mail says the u.s. has no leadership that believes in total victory over the in in the -- in the -- enemy. where are you calling from? caller: dayton, ohio.

you have had the head of the a osama bin laden unit on several times. i encourage people to go to your video archives and listen to him he is full of knowledge and facts. he has information on why people in that part of the world hates us or are very angry with us. this is another example of those reasons. he also has a website called non intervention. i read his articles two or three times because he has so much information in them. i think this is a mistake. we were attacked on 9/11.

i watched a couple of hours earlier. he was talking about how they had the right to going to afghanistan to go after the individuals or groups or terrorists. ron paul talked about how 14 of the terrorists were from saudi arabia. we're not going in there. we do lots of business with them. we need to have a deeper understanding of why so many people are angry with us. this is one more example. nonintervention, the website for michael shore. ifamericansknew.com and raceforiran.com. people need to understand why people are so angry with us.

host: the numbers from black friday are good according to some headlines. this is from "the washington post." they spent $11.4 billion on friday. they also talk about fund- raising, more politics. democratic leaders are raising money to be spent on the most competitive house races and doing something remarkable. they are out-raising their republican counterparts. house democrats have raised $52.1 million. here is a shot of the sports section from the "baltimore sun" of the president and first lady and a basketball game yesterday in towson, maryland.

brother is thes coach of one of the teams playing. this is an article about tv attack ads aimed at obama early and often. it says conservative action groups are already spending heavily on tv ads aimed at testing mr. obama -- casting mr. obama as a failure. this is from a democrat in arizona. he will be our guest after this program at 10:00 eastern. we asked the congressman what grade he would give the president for his three years in office. here is what he had to say. >> what grade would you give the president for his first three

years in office? >> i would give our president a passing grade. >> c is a passing grade. >> b- or c. i got those grades in school and consider them passing grades. i would say it is a passing grade. in terms of an endorsement, i have seen the cast of characters on the other side. i would not endorse them. what they bring to the discussion is the same kind of extremist positions on the economy and social well-being of the country. the contrast with the president is obvious. i will support the president. host: the congressman will be

our guest at 10:00 eastern with a replay at 6:00 eastern today. dayton, ohio? what is your reaction to the nato strikes in pakistan? what is the impact on relations? caller: it is going to make relations very touchy. one agent just died for gun- control with fast and furious. one agent that killed on the border. imagine how those people feel with 24 of their military people getting killed on the border. it is going to be very touchy. we need to get out of there. we need to put a small force in afghanistan. we need to get out of there. how many years has russia been in there? take it from history. afghanistan drains countries of

their finances. all of our money is going over there just like russia. all of their money went over there. when russia cannot of afghanistan, they were not a strong power anymore. we have to take our troops out of there and stop having all of these little areas. all we need is the cia or a small force to take care of the things we need to take care of over there, the people we're trying to chase. as far as having a big army over there, of course you are going to have this from the fire stuff happening. -- friendly fire stuff happening. the best thing for our nation to do is to bring our soldiers back, put a small force in there, and protect our border. our border is really in trouble right now.

bring the soldiers back to protect our border from drugs and illegal stuff coming into our country instead of worrying about that country. they are so far away. there is terrorist activity here that is home grown. they are so far away they do not have the money to come over here and do things. host: i want to get a few more calls in before we wrap things up. one viewer writes when you consider the number of pakistan is living in the u.s., one has to wonder how this will work out. believe it requires much imagination. the killing of up to 28 pakistani soldiers should not be tolerated by pakistan.

there were manning checkpoints to protect against taliban fighters. we want to give you another programming a day. this is birmingham weekend on c- span2 with boat tv programming and on c-span3 with american history programming. the author speaks about the rest of dr. king in birmingham -- arrest of dr. king in birmingham. >> at some point in his day, he will receive word or read in the newspaper this statement by the eight white ministers who called

his marches unwise and untimely. he begins writing in response to them in the margins of the newspaper he reads it in. slowly, he has an intellectual exercise during the eight days he is in jail. the date on the letter is april 16, 1963. that is quite sure days after he is arrested. he began composing this. -- that is four days after he is arrested. he began composing this. he smuggles it out with his attorneys to come to the jail to visit him. host: this is birmingham, alabama, weekend on c-span2 and c-span3. one other programming note, at 8:30 this morning, joe mcquaid

will join us from new hampshire to talk about his newspaper's endorsement of newt gingrich for president. he will be here for about 45 minutes to take your calls and explain the endorsement. michigan, michelle, independent, good morning. i would like to preface what i have to say by saying i am glad the afghan situation is coming to an end. about pakistan, it is about time. these terrorists have been hanging out on the border, getting training and armed to come back and kill our boys. if the caller from dayton thinks the war is so far away, let him

walk the halls of the bethesda naval hospital. my grandson is a wounded warrior. it brings it home real quick. good for us for getting them over in pakistan. i could not be happier. host: one last call is from mary on the independent line from milwaukee. caller: i pray for peace. americans need to pray because the reality is many of us have forgotten about god in our lives. you can look at my websites. jesus christ is in australia. the fbi, interpol, and politicians know that god is in australia. host: bring us back to the

pakistani story, if you could. that was mary from milwaukee for the last segment. we will be talking about this in the coming days as well. we will take a short time now and then talk about the economic impact of the failure of the super committee last week. our guest will be josh boak from politico. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> in a ceremony held aboard the u.s.s. constitution in boston harbor, simon winchester became

an american citizen. >> i decided i would take the necessary steps and exam. i got one of the questions wrong. i rang someone else up and told them about one of the questions wrong. she asked if it was the question about what color of the white house's. [laughter] it was, what is the american national anthem? the immigration officer said it should be that it is not. >> his latest book is now in paperback. watch the rest of our interview tonight. >> the newly designed web site

has 11 video choices making it easy for you to watch today's events live and recorded. it is also easier for you to get our schedule with new features to quickly scrolled through programs scheduled on the networks. you can even receive an e-mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. there's a section to access the most popular series and programs. there is a channel finder for cable and satellite systems across the country at c- span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: josh boak is an economic reporter for politico. we're here to talk about the economic impact of the failure of that committee. they did not reach the deal. they left town.

what is the impact? guest: you have the $1.2 billion in automatic cuts over the next decade. but friday sales were up by more than 6%. that was a shock to many in the industry. the compromise on the debt ceiling that led to the creation of the super committee showed a huge drop in consumer confidence. what we saw on friday is the power of of that overcame the doubts of the super committee. that said, we have several months left of holiday shopping. we will see if the momentum can continue. he will be interesting. october retail sales figures saw an uptick in consumer spending but not in the growth of income.

they're basically spending money instead of saving. host: move us: to the next year or so. we know these automatic cuts will take place, but not for a year or so. they are out shopping. things are up 6%. what is the next year look like for them? guest: uncertain. that is the watchword. it is often associated with regulators. it should be associated with lawmakers. there could be good news. if you are worried about the deficit and debt, the failure to reach a deal put at stake the bush tax cuts. if you go back to the downgrade of last august, the best case scenario was that the tax cuts will expire to put the u.s. on a sustainable path.

this is not partisan. this is just looking at the numbers. that is the good side. the downside is we could see more partisan disputes. president obama has vowed to veto any bill on the cuts. real people with real jobs will be hit by the cuts. companies are going to start making preparations for the next year to deal with that, particularly defense contractors. host: this is our guest first appearance on "washington journal." is an economics reporter for political. he was educated at princeton and columbia. he has written books. he was a reporter for the chicago tribune. he is here to talk about the economic impact of the failure of the so-called super

committee. we will get to your calls in a couple of minutes. we want to continue to move the story forward. we heard the failure was coming about, that maybe there was a way to block the cuts coming. guest: a lot of pressure is going to build on the defense side. they are taking half of the automatic cuts. you have already seen statements from senator kyl and senator mccain and others saying we do not want to put our nation at risk. that is an important statement to make. president obama announced he would veto any cuts. that is a strong statement. there is a delicate balance. our national security is also dependent on our economic strength. the way to balance that with the

budget and deficit and how much money we spend on defense is a tough challenge. when you are dealing with defense, you are truly dealing with the unpredictable. you do not know which way the events of the world could turn. that requires vigilance and spending. at the same time, if you do not have economic strength and access for a solid burn, you will face cuts. host: there has been a shortage of articles on the follow-up of the super committee. here is the latest from the opinion section of the "washington post." it was written by super committee members on the left side of the page. it says republicans would not accept the need for a balanced plan.

that is the headline from the congressman from maryland. republicans right that the democrats are determined to have big, new tax increases. we have more on the ongoing debate. the first call for our guest is from dayton, ohio. jeffrey is on the line for democrats. caller: congress has been working 135 days last year, 110 days this year. they are getting their little raises, $174,000 a year. that is kind of stupid. the military does not even get that kind of pay. there are three in 65 days. what do they do for the rest of them? -- there are 365 days. what do they do for the rest of them?

guest: i would say they work aggressively regardless of how many days they spent in session. the tough thing about the deficit and debt is that the bulk of the costs are in programs like medicare, medicaid, a defense. dealing with congressional salaries is not going to cut it. if the solution was that easy, we would have done it. host: tom, republican, good morning. caller: one of the things people are not realizing is that the private taxpayers have already paid for the bailout to the banking system, automotive industry, and so on. we need to look a the taxes they are asking us to pay as part of the revenue situation.

they're asking us to take the money, put it back to the federal government, have it go through their process. whatever comes out is to benefit our citizens. entrepreneurs are able to take it locally in invest money where in needs to be done. there's only a certain amount of money out there. it has to be used in a way that magnifies. the housing industry as a 12 to one situation. if we can improve the housing industry, that will be the key thing, more than raising taxes. if you help the housing industry, you help the realtors, plumbers, carpenters. you have the full 9 yards of things going around. we're focusing on the wrong issues. raising revenues through the tax system is not the most effective way to utilize the situation.

guest: on the housing situation, you hit the nail on the head and everything. a lot of economists are saying we cannot get a recovery unless we get a rebound in housing. some do not expect that to happen until 2015. that means we're going through a long hard slog. housing depends on access to that. you have to take a mortgage to buy the house. and people dealing with tight credit restrictions, it will be tough for housing to sort itself out regardless of what federal policy makers do. among the question is whether we're having the right debate. is the debate about revenues and spending? should we be focusing on the assets at the core of the american dream for the middle class? that is their house. if they feel wealthier, they will spend more. they will make better choices

with regard to taking risks. if they take the right kinds of risks, that will fuel the recovery. host: talk about the jobless rate. >> the unemployment rate is above 9%. that is a problem. consumers spend more. the unemployment rate will drop. we should really care about the employment to population ratio. right now, it is about 58% in change. it is more like 63%. if we can move that up, we will accelerate our economy. that is really a challenge. that is one of the last things behind-the-scenes that we're trying to cope with. we have not recovered from the recession in 2000 and 2001 on that issue. host: here is a twitter question. wall street is going to take this week, according to one viewer. -- tank this week, according to

one year. guest: it depends on which market you are talking about. with the stock market, that has to do with europe and the financial situation there. it is not something we can look ly domestically. a lot of people are looking for the safest assets in a turbulent time. interest rates on bonds decreases in the short terms when people buy them. that pattern has been holding. the flip side is the stock markets have been rallying. since of more than 5% october. we could still see that if a holiday sales continue. i am not a stock picker. i am not going to venture out

there. the reality is for every buyer, there needs to be a seller. host: robert from georgia is an independent scholar. caller: i was going to ask about the world war on economics. there seems to be like world war iii on economics. it goes back to eisenhower when he warned us about the military industrial complex. if you are not selling enough weapons, they are going to create something somewhere. i think that is what this afghanistan-pakistan-iraq is all about. they're just creating a situation where they can sell more weapons. we do not have any leadership in washington to put a cap on this. the industrialists and big

companies are the ones doing everything. they are the ones calling the shots. politicians are just reacting to everything. there is no leadership. they are not calling any shots. if we let this carry on, this whole conspiracy think about the new world order tried to kill a% of the people on the planet is going to work. guest: i do not know enough about that. i will say that the caller gets of something. that is that right now, a lot of our wars are being financed by debt. we depend on debt to fight wars. we have since the revolution. the question is how we should be paying for these things. should there be a combination of debt and tax increases or should be one or the other? that is going to impact the security choices we make.

>> with the iraqi pullout coming. some on the hill talk about reducing debt through war savings, money no longer being spent on wars. what do you make of those calculations, that type of math? guest: it is kind of like the mark twain quote about statistics and lies. there are all kinds of base lines out there. in theory if we're not spending money on war, it is coming back to us. we have to make smart choices. the bigger thing is we want to be spending our money in effective ways and not just dealing with hypothetical. the question is what we can do to get the most bang for our buck as a taxpayer. that gets to the broader questions about how we're spending our money in afghanistan, pakistan, and iraq. host: here is a call from brian, a democrat from new jersey. caller: i would like to address

a statement josh made in response to have congress -- to congress. this super committee was just a smokescreen to prolong the elections. no one can get along and work for the greater good of the country. guest: the word "bridge" is used generously in d.c. the question is how strong the bridge is. we're not talking about the george washington bridge. we're talking about the rope bridge from indiana jones. if you whack it, it will fall.

ideologies in forming political decision in a counterproductive way. overcoming that involves a crucial step. that is the voice of the voters. what forces a deal is nothing more than the risk of getting voted out of office. unfortunately, the performance of the stock market and bond markets is not going to bring it back. host: here is a question from twitter on interest rates. guest: that is a great question. the 10-year treasury is below 2%. that suggests the u.s. is the safest place in a very turbulent market. that is important. that is a relative term. that does not mean we are caught right safe. it just means that we are

considered safer than other investments. the bond market can swing violently and suddenly. just because things look good today does not mean and opinions cannot change. many economists would say that any short-term stimulus has to be packaged with medium and long-term steps to get our debt under control. otherwise, our capacity to borrow could be hurt. host: a want to ask about the possibility of another downgrade. some have said the failure of the super committee may lead to another downgrade. what has been the impact of the first down. ? -- of the first down. ? guest: we have not felt it yet. s&p downgraded us in august. .ow there is moody's and fitch

they said the failure of the super committee is not outright grounds for it. if the super committee cannot follow through, it will be a problem. if we do not take additional steps to deal with some debt issues, we are on negative outlook. that increases the probability of downgrade. by no means are we out of the woods with this. host: social security is on the list along with veterans' benefits, medicaid, a children's health insurance, unemployment insurance, the temporary assistance for needy families, food stamps. some other programs are exempt. does that mean there was a winner in all of this and when you lump these programs together?

guest: i am not sure if anyone wins. it is just degrees of losing. you are still in the constrained budgetary environment. that scenario does not change regardless of what the super committee does. snap is basically food stamps. you have seen a huge surge in demand for food stamps. but is not a good thing. that is a step being taken to make sure people can eat in this country. the winners versus losers of five is too simplistic -- divide is too simplistic. caller: we knew the committee was doomed when one of the republican candidates was asked about $1 and expenses for $10 in cuts and whether there would take it. all of the republicans said no.

i am not concerned about obamacare. it is not running my business. when they said they would not take one budget increase in expenditure for $10 in cuts, it let me know that it is time to send these folks who will not compromise back to where they came from. they are not true americans. we do not need folks stuck on positions. are you there to get the job done? to me, they have let us down. those folks who will not compromise and move from the extreme right or left should not be in office. thank you. god bless america. guest: it gets to the fundamental take on how you should view the world.

right now, ideologies are informing political debate. the question is how we move from that to output and outcome. that is the tough job of d.c. in election season, we deal with intentions and not actual outcomes. the voter frustration may lead to a conversation about outcome. host: hi, gary. caller: a wish that i had half of your patients. -- i wish that i had half of your patience. [laughter] i have this idea that we start taxing churches and nonprofit organizations. you are allowed to take that off of your taxes if you donate to a church or nonprofit. that is not right. it is not fair to people who do

not belong in that. it is one thing to donate money to a police organization. he should all be allowed to take the money out of the general fund. it is not fair to everyone else. i am not a religious person. i do not think it is fair people are allowed to give money to a church. the church does what it once without money. it comes out of my taxes. there's less money in the fund for the general population. we should take care of the country first. if you want to put money somewhere else, you can put it there, but you should not be allowed to take money out of the general fund for it. guest: there are two ways to look at the proposal. politically, it will be tough to get through. just about every candidate shows a certain devotion to their religious beliefs. the same thing for voters. i do not see them wanting to jeopardize that for tax policy.

the second thing is as much money that would actually raise. you might be surprised when you look at the real numbers. i do not know what they are. the real test in looking at proposed tax increases is how much money it raises and what effect it has on the economy. it is worth looking at those issues. right now, it is early to make any judgments on it. host: moving on to greensboro, north carolina. greg is on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i would like to comment on two things. why can we not get rid of the bush tax code? my next question is about taxing the church. you have a lot of small churches out there struggling. the members are struggling to

pay their money to keep the church operating. you have the large ministries like joel osteen. that is my question. thank you. host: i am not sure there is an exact question. guest: the bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012. we can look at what happened as a result of the super committee. if the republicans are not able to capture the white house, they risk those cuts expiring. those are cuts they have fought for and fought over. president obama has an easy solution to the revenue problems by letting the cuts expire if we're talking about debt and deficit issues. s&p in their downgrades said if you let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest portion of the country, that is $950 billion

over 10 years. churches are extremely diverse in size. host: that is one of the fallout's legislatively over the bush tax cuts. now that the super committee has failed, will the bush tax cuts be the big debate? guest: in the short term, you have two other things coming up for exploration. one is extended unemployment benefits. the other is the payroll tax holiday. speaker boehner has said he is in favor of extending these. the question is what the next round of dealmaking will lead us to do. host: who will lead the charge?

guest: this is an electorial win-win. wall street analysts say it is key for maintaining momentum in the economy. it is like taking away the punch bowl for the party. speaker boehner is forcing the issue on fiscal responsibility. the question is whether democrats are going to be the ones to say what they're willing to do to extend the programs or whether we will see a republican solution. how that plays with voters will be crucial. are you the person that will be generating solutions or blocking them? both sides have their own take. host: we have about 15 minutes sh boak.h joh

john is a republican. thank you for waiting. caller: i would love to have a lot of your time to ask questions about economics. i am a construction engineer. i used to test asphalt. there is a test where you put it through a series of sieves until you end up with the smallest particles. i think of the problem in that way. what you find at each level. jobs would be at every level. ing to you see us return i unemployment of 6%? i have a difficult time understanding how we will do

that. you appear to be in your 30's perhaps. i would like to see everybody over the age of 50 removed from congress. i do not mean that literally. the young people who will have to live with the result of the fallout from all of this need to get going and begin to deal with it. good luck to you. i wish i had your brain and youth. good luck to you. take care. guest: he just made my day. the question of how to get unemployment brought down to 6% is the top 20 question. it is the hard-won that lawmakers and policy makers should be addressing. it cannot happen overnight. this takes time. it is not necessarily going to

work on an electoral time cycle. we are talking about major issues. to get unemployment down by 0.1%, you have to add more than 100,000 jobs. this is going to be a slow process. the other thing we have to look at is the dynamic of what our economy will be going forward. what percentage should be financed by debt, the role of consumers and manufacturing. detroit is a hit center for the automobile industry. it is the heart of american manufacturing. the u.s. consumer probably should not be more than 2/3 of the economy now. that means we have to have more production and manufacturing. that is not a simple, overnight solution. any politician who says a couple of elections can fix this is not

being candid. manufacturing takes time because it takes investment. that takes five or 10 years. we can position ourselves to be stronger than we were. this has happened in the past. we saw it with the great depression. the u.s. economy cannot more resilience and productive. -- the u.s. economy came out more resilient and productive. host: what do you see happening with unemployment? we read about big companies holding on to cash. give us some perspective. guest: corporations are sitting on more than $2 trillion. it is an increase of about $78 billion since the start of the year. do not quote me on the exact

numbers. the real problem seems to be they are not sure where the demand for their product is coming from. it is a demand problem. some on the right say they are concerned about future regulations. fundamentally, if they knew who the next question -- customer was, they would unleash the cash. that is the big problem we are facing as opposed to that debate. host: the morning. caller: it is like a balance the budget attachments. if they got rid of the attachments, they would have had a better vote. congress and the senators are the ones who got us in the problem in the first place. they should have balanced the budget years ago.

guest: he has an opinion in terms of balancing the budget. the real question is the reasonable expectation for what the deficit and that should be. there will be times when we need massive amounts of spending. the question is how we rain in the debt and deficit during the good times so that during times of crisis we are able to ramp up borrowing to fund activities to preserve the american way of life. host: the balanced budget amendment failed. it sounds like a good thing. guest: our country in some ways was founded on the level of debt. that was essential going forward because the debt was a way to get money to soldiers in the revolutionary war. you go back to the wonderful biography of george washington.

you see the constant pressures he had a putting -- getting food, guns, ammunition. that helped pay for that war. the ability to borrow is crucial. u.s. borrowing helps make the world economy go around. we provide a highly liquid market in u.s. treasurys that serves as a cash equivalent. lawmakers recognize that. the real question is the appropriate level of debt we should have. that is a slightly different question. host: let's hear from tehran was in chicago -- darren who is in chicago on the line for democrats. caller: to the democrats -- do we think the democrats or for america or are they on their own agenda?

they refuse to do anything to the rich. do we feel like the republicans work for the american people? are they on their own agenda? guest: i think they work for their voters. they work for the people who get them in thoffice. that can be the granma who shows up on election day and pulls the lever. it is easy to make statements about being for or against the american people when you are for one segment of the country at the expense of another. we have seen this with republicans and democrats. host: the president is going to run the country to talk about economics. guest: one thing they have started playing up in recent months is that we needed the

$447 billion jobs package to protect us against europe. this is the wild card. this is the huge storm waiting for us. if europe goes down, the u.s. economy could go back into recession as well. president obama has a limited set of tools. he cannot tell the european leaders what to do. he needs to do what he can to insulate and protect the u.s. economy. not getting the jobs package gives him a chance to sound the alarm to say we would have been better prepared to defend against what could happen in europe. we are part of a big global market. if italy defaults, the shudders will echo and hit our markets. companies depend upon affiliate's for revenue and profit.

you have a decrease in the amount of money being spent worldwide. that will create fallout with the u.s. economy. there is anxiety. at the end of today, we have a debt to gdp ratio of 150%. that is incredibly hard. italy has it that 120%. if they do not bring that under control while sustaining economic growth, we are in trouble. ann inet's go to tennessee, a republican. caller: it is a democrat house and senate. now is not the time to be raising taxes. the economy has not gotten better. it has gotten worse. they are occupying whatever.

they are just useful idiots being used by these people. obama got most of his contributions from wall street. he is not going to do anything to them. every time the republicans agree with the democrats to raise taxes if they will cut spending, it does not happen. taxes go up. democrats brought down -- back down on cutting spending. so many times to get slapped in the face, you realize you do not believe them anymore. guest: obama did extend the bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. that is true. it is important when we talk about wall street and occupy wall street, we need to understand how diverse wall street is. it has conflicting interests even within firms.

we refer to it as one central interest. it is important to know there are competing interests on all kinds of issues among major banks, brokerages, a hedge funds, private equity firms. that nuance is critical. you can see president obama received a ton of money from wall street. republicans received a ton of money from wall street. host: mohammed is on the democratic line. caller: i am calling from chaplin, minnesota. i think common sense will resolve the problem. if a car does not work, you buy a new car. the people of the united states

need to reform the whole system to be able to resolve our problems. if not, we will keep on talking all the time. i thank mr. josh for his analysis. i hope they will listen to him as well. host: anything on the horizon? guest: it is important to remember the american public has a huge stake in this. they can also make the decisions that echo across the economy. we tend to think of everything in a dc-centric way. if we create government programs, we create a safety net for society. the reality is individual choices made by voters can often

have that reform impact that i think the caller is talking about. host: bob from new jersey is on the republican line. caller: i have one question and some comments. if the bush tax cuts expire, does that mean 47% of the people who pay nothing will start paying something? host: let me get a response and then we can get your comments. guest: he is referring to income taxes. it is important to put that in broader perspective. it is not that people are not paying taxes. they are paying payroll taxes. they are paying sales taxes. you have to put that in the appropriate perspective. i cannot speak with certainty because of the complexity of the tax code in terms of what will happen. the reality is the vast majority of the american public are

paying taxes. they have a tax burden just like you. caller: my neighbor paid $2,000 in payroll taxes. his return was $3,500. that is what i mean by not paying taxes. if obama was worried about jobs, why did he kill the pipeline? you say they do not get along in congress. in the last election, obama's took a slapping. we sent them there to do what they're doing. we have to stop what they are doing. guest: i think he just made the case. there are voters who are pleased with this. when people ask what we can do to get them to work together, their jobs have to be at stake.

host: edward is an independent from montana. caller: i am a disabled veteran. i am calling this an intentional setup to fail. i am calling the senators out on treason. host: thank you for calling. the last call is an independent from indiana. caller: i would like to ask him how many countries we have troops in and how much money we send to other countries, if he and howdea on that, much more that money might help us in the united states with the

trouble we are in here. host: that is not an uncommon thineme from our viewers. guest: we could pull the money back and still face the same problems with the deficit and debt. we're not spending enough money overseas to be able to tackle our debt and deficit. we could have serious pullback from the. sometimes spending that money prevents us from having to spend a lot more money further down the road. we have to be careful in the accounting of this. the simple answer is that it will not generate savings. host: our guest has been josh boak from politico. thank you for your thoughts and insights this morning. when we come back, we will talk about a big political announcement this morning. the "manchester union leader"

has endorsed newt gingrich. the publisher will be with us live to explain that decision and take your calls. we will be right back. >> is past july 4 in a ceremony held the ball -- and this past july 4 in a ceremony held aboard the uss constitution, wimon winchester became an american citizen -- simon winchester became an american citizen. >> i think i got one of the questions wrong. i had an australian friend who was also up for citizenship. i ran gher and -- rang her and said, i got one of the question is wrong. she said, not the one about what color is the white house. i said no.

the one about the national anthem. i blurted out america, the beautiful -- "america, the beautiful." he said, opened what it should be, but it is not." -- " i think it should be, but it is not." >> the newly redesigned c-span website has made it easier for you to get our schedule, with new features like a three- network layout. you can quickly school -- scroll through the programs. you can access our most popular series and programs like "washington journal," "booktv," and the contenders " -- "the contenders." at the all-new c-span.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: here it is on this sunday, a big political announcement out of new hampshire. in the sunday news, for president -- in the sunday news, "for president, newt gingrich." joseph mcquaid writes -- joe mcquaid is in new hampshire this morning, joining us live. how did you come to this decision to endorse newt gingrich? guest: we have known him longer than the other candidates. we have watched him and the others. we have had them in, a lot of them with c-span taping the conversations, and we have watched the so-called debates, which are really q&a's.

i thought it was pretty clear that the guy who stands up from the crowd is mr. gingrich. host: what makes him stand out? guest: his experience, for one thing. you'll recall, back in the 1990's, he brought the republicans to power in the congress for the first time in more than 40 years, which we cite in the editorial. his constant -- his inspiration was the "contract with america." he had an ability to work with the democratic president. he and bill clinton did not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but they managed to get a balanced budget, do away with the deficit. host: you write in your editorial, that "readers know that we do not back candidates on popularity or backs -- big- shot backers. we look for people who are

independent-minded and best equipped for the job." what did newt gingrich say that led to that "courage of convention -- conviction, independence-minded." guest: he is not afraid to speak his mind, as your viewers know. he pointed out where he stood on the issue of long-time illegal immigrants versus newly over the fence. his view is that we have to really look at history and shape a new turn for the country both here and abroad. i am one of those skeptics that always thinks, when they say it is about the economy stupid and domestic affairs, i am always looking over the fence to see where they stand on foreign

affairs. i think there, too, gingrich has a wealth of knowledge and not a hair trigger. and he would really know how to process the information and make the right decision. host: we will put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for joe mcquaid. we will get your calls in just a moment. the manchester union leader has made his endorsement for newt gingrich. there are separate lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. joseph mcquaid is the publisher of the "manchester union leader ." what a poll saying -- what are the polls saying? guest: the polls show that romney maintain the lead, which is understandable in new hampshire. he has a place in new hampshire. he was the governor of massachusetts not that long ago.

the polls also show a tremendous amount of in decision on the part of the voters. we said in the editorial that we thought part of that was, what has been the national media focus today on the republican campaign, which has been to really magnify every little mistake anyone of them makes and not concentrate on the broader issues. i think the last poll from the university of new hampshire and the local abc affiliate showed 16% of the voters were committed to their candidate. we have seven weeks left before the primary. host: the primary on january 10, as we know. before we get the calls, joseph and quaid -- joseph mcquaid, you said it was a clear choice to go with newt gingrich. explain the process that you undertake to come up with the endorsement. you have these meetings. you said that gingrich was among the most visible to you, if not

the most visible. how do you get to the public that you got to this morning with your group -- to the point that you got to this morning with your group out there? guest: i have to the grandchildren. i throw them in the air. which ever one comes down with the name on it, that is our candidate -- whichever one comes down with that name on it, that is our candidate. i did not mean to be good. there are precisely two of us who write the editorials. drew has been in on all of the meetings with the candidates. i have had occasion to go out with one are two of them separately to try to size them up as -- one or two of them separately to try to size them up as individuals. we talk about it. we came to the conclusion a few weeks ago that it really came down to two or three candidates. who was going to best crab the

moment and not merely -- grab the moment and not merely be a manager as he goes into office? we think gingrich, sometimes he goes off. people say what the heck is he talking about, but at least they are asking what the heck he is talking about. he is providing ideas. he has done so much work in terms of medical health costs, the social security system and others, that it was not that difficult for the two of us, and other people who are respectively the community, to say, yeah, he's the one. host: a lot of the write ups this morning talk about mitt romney as well, saying this is a must-win for him. what is your response? guest: i think it is a must-win for romney.

he is a favorite son. this is a game and expectations -- game of expectations. i think the expectations will be lower as a result of our conservative newspaper weighing in. he still has to win by a solid margin. the polls show gingrich coming in second. i and the three that are going to mix it up are romney, gingrich, and -- i pink the three that are going to mix it up are romney, gingrich, and -- i think the three that are going to mix it up our mitt romney, gingrich, and ron paul -- are mitt romney, gingrich, and ron paul. host: let's get to the caller's. -- callers. caller: immediate, the print paper has so much-- the media, the print paper has so much

perceived power. why is everyone allowing me get to vote for us? -- why is everyone allowing the media to vote for us? i do not have anything against gingrich. i do not understand why all this value is being given to the media and taking the voter away from individuals such as myself i am supposed to believe that the sky, gingrich -- such as myself. i am supposed to believe that this guy, gingrich, is the guy for me. i would rather you for your kids in the air. there would be less connection to whoever you guys that your deals with. host: i think we lost him. but we did get a point. the caller talking about power or perceived power. he could make his own decision, but what the make of the general thrust of his comments?

guest: first, i did throw the kids up in the air. gingrich came down the winner. i thought i made that clear. we did not have any great power. what we have is the ability for people in the state to set a course based on what we have said. they know us. they know where we come from. they either agree or disagree. they say, ok, the "union leader" has said this. the "union leader" has not always pick winners, by any stretch of the imagination. we did last time with mccain in 2000. -- we did last time with mccain -- in 2000, his competitor -- i have talked with people since 1996. we did not go along with the big

shots. we do not consider ourselves a big shot. we are just stating one conservative voice. the unique thing is that we let everybody else have a voice, too. we run more letters to the editor then any other paper in the country. i dare say we will get a lot on this issue. host: newt gingrich, the "union leader" writes, is -- from the "union leader" this morning. this is matthew from whales in the u.k. -- wales in the u.k. you are on with the publisher of

the "union leader." caller: i would like a bit of education. for me, we have several different parties in the u.k. we currently have a coalition government. there are something like 500 million americans, of which 400 million are potentially voters. why are there only two political parties? it just seems really strange that, with such a large population, you do not have any alternatives. it seems like they have been outgunned. help me, please. host: how about a political lesson? guest: i think he touched on it when he said "finances." these two organizations, democratic and republican parties are quite powerful --

parties, are quite powerful. they raise a considerable amount of money. they have shunted aside any kind of independent, third voice. there is an effort, as i am sure c-span followers know, to start an independent, onlnie third -- online, third-party for president. there was want some backing for this. they will try to get there and -- a name on 50 state ballots. i think it will be difficult to do. the process has started. there are independents to crop up every four to eight years. a lot of people were upset with ralph nader i 2000 4 -- in 2 004, because they think he took votes away from john kerry and before that out for -- that, al gore.

the history of this country is a big surge of the third party, the last one to occur was in 1912, when former president roosevelt, teddy roosevelt, challenge the sitting president, william howard taft. all the dead was pave the way for a democrat to get in. -- all it did was pave the way for a democrat to get in. the tea party is a strong voice in the republican party. some people in that group have said, if we do not like the republican candidate, we are going to have a third wind. the republicans, including gingrich -- third one. the republicans, including gingrich, say that if you do that, you are just reelecting obama. the third party will just take too much money. host: we have some comments from newt gingrich with the "union

leader." in this particular clip, he talks about his prospects for beating president obama. we will show that and come back to comments. >> i can load and to beat obama or to elect obama -- i can vote to beat obama or to let obama. there is a desperate desire to beat obama. that is the biggest advantage i have. if you say to people, who would you like to see debate obama, overwhelmingly, they say me. host: joe mcquaid, what do you hear in him that drives the conviction that you talked about? guest: i mean he is a great student of history -- i think he

is a great student of history and america's core values. newt has really grown up, i think. he has been a shooter from the hip. he does not suffer fools gladly. sometimes, he does not suffer friends gladly. he has grown. he has learned to bite his ample tongue. in the republican debates -- i hesitate to call them that, because it is not much of a back and forth -- with the exception of the cnn one where the moderator actually gave people time to get their answers out. gingrich was head-and-shoulders above his rivals in that debate format, just really answering the questions, not going after rival candidates, not trying to

score points with some memorable, short answer, but saying what he really felt. i thought his putdown of ron paul in this last debate, when they were talking national security and the patriot act. paul was saying, you have to protect the rights of bad guys intent on blowing up american cities. he said -- gingrich said that was not a good enough reason. ron paul said, look, we got tim mcveigh. gingrich said, we got tim mcveigh after he blew up that building and all those people. the point being, and gingrich hammered it home forcefully, that we need to stop these islamist extremists before they get a dirty bomb into an american city. host: we have lots more calls

coming up for our guest. among the candidates in new hampshire, whose ground game is the strongest right now? is a newt gingrich or someone else -- is it newt gingrich or someone else? guest: gingrich does not have much of a ground game at all. he is putting it together. he will have to spend considerable time here. i think the big ground game is romney. i think rick santorum, he has mike biondo -- he has put together some strong ground work. beyond that, governor huntsman himself is here a lot, but has not attracted much attention or much support to date. ron paul is sort of just a magnetic force by himself and draws good crowds where he goes.

everybody has got a different strategy. governor perry is not to be counted out. for one reason, he has a sackful of money for television ads. tv ads, even in the durable -- even in new hampshire, are becoming quite a force. host: we understand herman cain has rescheduled his interview with you for later this week. what are you looking to hear from herman cain? guest: just for businessman king to shore up his positions -- businessman cain to shore up his positions. his poll strength is being the anti-government businessman to a greater extent than any of them. he has not held public office. i hope he still comes in. just because we have endorsed a candidate does not mean that we

do not want to hear what the guy has dissent. we have met -- has to say. we have met mr. cain earlier this year. he came in for a short chat. i found to be quite an engaging idea with a lot of interesting ideas. host: sue, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few comments. last election, i voted for obama. i am now looking to the right. if you listen to the debate, i think newt was the most intelligent and articulate. my problem with him is the trust factor. he had his past indiscretions during the clinton years. what would make me want to trust him now? is it business as usual? i am one of the old guys. as far as the candidate, i like huntsman.

i think ron paul is probably the most honest one, to me. i'm still up in the air about who to vote for. host: joseph mcquaid, the trust factor. guest: that is a negative for mr. gingrich. on the matter of personal indiscretions, you know, everybody has them in the background. newt's have been magnified and distorted to a great degree. we ran a story a week ago, in which we got gingrich and his daughter to talk more openly than i have never seen about this urban legend that he visited his dying wife in a hospital to serve her divorce papers. that is the kind of thing, if you are a political junkie, you want to believe -- a real bad

guy with horns -- but it did not have a grain of truth in it. his daughter published a column earlier this year, which i saw. her mother is still alive and well. her mother asked for the divorce, not mr. gingrich. mr. gingrich foolishly took his two daughters to drop them off to see their mom and decided to go up himself. he and his then wife did get into a heated argument. so what? people who divorce and to do that. people who are not getting divorced tend to do that. everything about gingrich is going to be magnified. as you can see, since he has moved up in the polls, there's going to be more of that. he is a flawed candidate, but i think he is the best one. host: to florida, republican,

christopher, for joe mcquaid. caller: thank you, for joe, for your wisdom. newt is the man. he is a historian. newt came one vote short of giving us a balanced-budget amendment. we would not have these problems right now if he had gotten that vote. in addition, he understands how this economy works. we cannot throw money at the economy. it is way too big for the government to throw money at, take our tax money and throw it at it. the only thing we can do is stop hurting its own much. we can grow the economy to increase revenues -- to stop hurting it so much. we can grow the economy to increase revenues.

we have to make it an attractive the merman for corporations to come here or to stay here. -- we have to make it an attractive environment for corporations to come here and stay here. the only thing we have control over is how much we tax corporations and how much we regulate corporations. host: thank you. what else did newt gingrich say to you on the economic front that you appreciative? -- appreciated? guest: i am thinking baptism of the things the first lady mentioned. it is an interesting -- i am thinking back to some of the things that the first lady mentioned. it is an interesting thing. everything you could possibly hear about him, he has put up on his website and answered it. a lot of it has to do with money. he made money off of his contact with freddie mac. that is so horrible thing

because he is a businessman. freddie mac later went in the tank. the florida caller is correct. gingrich wants to get the capital gains tax down. he wants the corporate tax down. he understands the letters of government which did in the way and which, if removed or at least lessons -- which get in the way and which, if removed or at least lessened, could help the economy grow. we remain in an economic malaise. host: he spoke about social security with you in your meeting on november 21, not the 18th. here is a lesson in to the former speaker -- listen in to the former speaker. >> everybody could use a

personal social security savings account. you would build it up over your lifetime. if you want to work part-time at 14, 16 -- the easiest model is that you are allowed to put your half of the social security tax into your own savings account. the other half goes to sustain the current system. when you look at that, in terms -- it turns out half of that amount can bring you two times to three times as much money. host: this is a point he has made quite a bit. are folks out there responding to it much? guest: i do not know on an independent basis. herman cain has been big on the social security change, too, and mentions the same models.

newt and his ideas -- we talked about medicare and the prescription d drug benefit. he kick -- ticked off a bunch of fraud and waste and savings that could be made. he talked about to be set an american express -- about visa and american express and having them be in charge of making payments instead of the federal government. he identified a substantial figure that could be saved. it is that kind of thing that is outside the box. host: new hampshire, the 10th of january, iowa one week prior on january 3. politico is writing a story. "it's up to you, iowa" -- the new mailer. the mail is essentially two messages --

i want to bring up the immigration part. newt gingrich made quite a bit of news about his stance on immigration. what are your thoughts? guest: they are running a national campaign, but they have to stick to one theme. their theme has been to heck with iowa. we're not going to win there. we do not want to perform badly, so we are not going to invest there. they are pouring it all in iowa -- in to iowa. host: about the immigration, is that gingrich made -- immigration comments that gingrich made? guest: it was not a change in

position. now people are paying attention to him. i have a bit of a bias against the media which focus in on whoever is rising on the republican side and they start taking shots at them. frankly, i think the liberal media is in the obama camp and wants him to win. gingrich did not say the "a" word, the "amnesty" word, which others pounced on and said he was doing. he said eloquently and forcefully that, if you have lived in the community for 25 years from your our grandfather, you go to church in that community -- 25 years, you are a grandfather, you go to church in

that community, we are not likely to waste tax dollars trying to identify you and throw you out. if you're a newcomer, those are the ones that we want to go after. he was not saying that it was a pass to citizenship -- path to citizenship. he was saying it is a path to legality. most people see that you cannot identify and report 11 million people. the obama administration has decided to deport practically nobody. our community and manchester, the state's largest city in a relatively -- our community of manchester, the state's largest city in a relatively small state, the police have thrown up their hands. the police chief tells me that if he turns people over to i.c.e., the immigration

service's, they just kick them out. they are not interested. gingrich has a better idea. it is not a flaming new one, but it happens to be a good idea. host: al is on the line from clayton, new jersey. caller: good morning. as a newspaper, how can you endorse a person who, his own -- who his own party kicked out as speaker of the house because he has no ethics? that's all i want to know. host: leet's hear 0-- let's hear from joe mcquaid. guest: gingrich was cleared of the charges that were raised in that federal investigation. he is not a popular, well-met kind of guy, in part because he

speaks his mind on his ideas. people grow. i do not think his party kicked him out. the republican caucus, certainly in congress, wanted him to step down, which he did, but there are an awful lot of leaders in the world to have been unpopular and then reason to leave their country. -- and then have risen to lead their country. host: the gingrich, the front page of "the washington post -- newt gingrich, the front page of "the washington post."

greg is calling now from jacksonville, florida, on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have been a c-span listeners since its initial debut in 1979 -- listener since its initial debut in 1979. i have two recommendations. one is to allow more callers, regardless of their political persuasion, to call in to the show versus reading the articles, the host asking

questions, and the guest asking questions. the callers do not get the call in, implying that they do not know what is going on in the political world. i would recommend you take that to the editorial board of c- span, to allow more calls to come in versus the host or guest elaborating on the topics. the union leader -- the "union leader has never endorsed -- the "union leader" has never endorsed someone on the liberal side. i want to talk about the situation with gingrich and his wife when she had cancer. there are several things that are factual. he was dating his aide at the time that he was castigating bill clinton about the situation that he had with monica lewinsky. he has not denied the kind of

money that he has taken from fannie mae. he has disagreed with them and criticized them. that is hypocrisy. to bring him back in this reincarnation that we're talking about now -- newt gingrich has always been a flame thrower. he has been a divider of the country ever since he got to congress in 1992. i just do not see not only how even some forms of the media cannot begin to challenge him on some of these things that the previous caller talked about about his moral base, about some of the unethical things he has done, and some of the things that -- is this what we're looking for? host: that was great from jacksonville, florida -- greg from jacksonville, florida. guest: the gentleman complains that you should take more calls and let the callers be heard. i think that you are doing that.

the historical perspective that he has been listening to since 1979 -- so have i.. i think c-span does a fair job of mixing up the callers. as far as gingrich is concerned -- it is funny. on the economic side of things, romney is going to be perceived rightly as the guy who is richer than anybody on the republican side by a factor of at least 10. gingrich, some people have said that, well, he has just always been in government. in fact, he has been out of government. he is a savvy businessman who has made a name for his companies, of which he has several, and which have employed, in one case, more than 30 people. it is not like it is all going

in linking rich's pocket. as far as the ethics, -- going in gingrich's pocket. as far as the ethics, i think he was cleared in the investigation. as far as hypocrisy -- every politician in this country is hypocritical if it means saying one thing and then doing something else forever circumstance -- for whatever circumstance. i do not think he is exempt from that, but nor do i think he is the leader of that pack. host: in the op-ed, nicholas kristof writes -- we also want to show you this ad

by mitt romney, where he talks about the president, particularly in new hampshire. let's take a look. >> i am confident that we can steer ourselves out of this thing. we need a rescue plan. we need to provide relief for homeowners. if we keep talking about the economy g, we are going to win this. >> i'm going to do something the government. i call it the smaller, simpler, smarter approach to government, making government itself more efficient. i'm going to get rid of obama care. it is killing jobs and keeping our kids from having the bright prospects they deserve. we have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in. i will make sure that america is a jobs-creating machine, like it

has been in the past. it is high time during those principles of this the responsibility to washington, d.c. i am mitt romney and i approved this message. host: romney is being attacked for the veracity of this ad. any take on that? guest: the veracity -- every word that is in the ad is the word of the office. unfortunately, the words that obama are quoting are actually from the mccain campaign in 2008, in which mccain's team was conceding, if it's the economy, we lose, which, in fact, mccain lost on. obama says it is fair, because it was used against him

in 2008. if you are running a targeted ad, you wanted to come off so the other side cannot take such wide-open shots at it. as far as kristof, i have not read that column about obama being a pinata. he certainly is going to be so. every president does not get the credit he deserves from the right or the left. you do not make everybody and everybody happy. obama has delivered or p-- has to live or perish by the last four years. host: joe mcquaid, publisher of the "union leader." we will continue to take a

couple more calls. ed, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to quote -- ask a question, not just to this gentleman, but to the republican establishment. why are you not having buddy on these debates? i heard him once on c-span -- great speech in front of the chinese embassy. host: another name we have not talked about. we have had him on a couple of times. what the make of -- what do you make of buddy roemer? guest: we have had him in a couple of times and we have put him on the front page of the paper. it is certainly not fair that all of the candidates who are registered debt on the

televised -- it is certainly not fair that all of the registered candidates do not get on televised debates. there are more than 50 in new hampshire. how does one go about putting all of those people on the debate and expecting people to not have to go off and get married and live their lives while the debate is still going on? it just does not work. i sympathize with the networks. we have been involved in a couple of these things. we were involved with one with cnn earlier on. you can get in trouble if you do not have exacting criteria -- and the same criteria -- for some free -- for everybody to get in. they, mean the networks and my guys to work with them, they look at -- they, meaning the networks and my guys who work

with them, they look at poll numbers and how legitimate the candidate is in terms of having an establish organization in the state they are running. have they filed papers? have they really made a commitment? governor roemer, governor terry johnson, who did make one -- governor gary johson, who did make one debate -- and others, did not have enough criteria. perhaps there is an additional tier and they could be mixed up and sort price. the networks are in this for ratings, for one thing, and for an engaging conversation.

i have seen a santorum and huntsman -- seen santorum and huntsman be virtually neglected in these debates. if you add another one or two in, they will hardly be introduced. he is trying to take a different turn. he was increasing the occupy wall street movement -- she was embracing the occupy wall street movement -- he was embracing the occupy wall street movement, which did not been a lot of fans -- gain him a lot of fans. host: how much is newt gingrich's religious stance

"tainting the new hampshire voters"? guest: new hampshire leads the pack on people not going to church on a regular basis. i do not think that his religion means a whit. you do not hear it mentioned up here. i think is the first time i have heard it mentioned directly. i do not think it is going to make a difference. i am told that, outside of new england, in the deep south and in the west, there may be some resentment or misunderstanding. i do not think that is going to be the case. i think the economic and other issues are so great that, unless you are really, really religious the biased against mormons, --

religiously biased against mormons, it is not going to matter. newt gingrich converted to catholicism a couple of years ago, what might upset some people. i think that has pretty well died out. host: good morning, bob. caller: you forgot the last part of the exchange between newt gingrich and ron paul. ron paul said you could become -- you could prevent crime by becoming a police state. the crime will be against the american people and our freedom. we will throw out some much of what our revolution has fought for. do not do it carelessly. coming from the state of "live free or die," i would think he would know that. -- you would know that. you know that the bush administration illegally

wiretapped people. they had it be immunized to avoid being prosecuted. these are important issues. you should reconsider your decision. host: i am well aware of what ron paul said in response to newt gingrich relative to the patriot act. i do not think that being rich or most republicans are arguing for us to become a police -- that gingrich or most republicans are arguing for us to become a police state at all. far from it. there are measures in place to keep that from happening, including a special court, one of whose members is the chief justice of ryland and a -- rhode island and a pretty square shooter. the main point in the back and forth was being rich -- was gingrich saying that the patriot

act helps prevent explosions on american soil. ron paul seems to be putting the police stayed out there as more of a boogeyman than it is. host: 1 last caller. good morning. caller: two quick points regarding newt gingrich. given the fact that he endorsed and still has not criticized that trade deal, nafta, written by rahm emanuel, i really have a big problem with that. second, i would like to comment to the gentleman from florida who called in previously. i wonder why he made no comment about barack obama being the recipient of billions of dollars from wall street, the big banks, foreign nationals, all the corporations he criticizes when he is claiming to be supportive of the. 99the -- of the 99%.

i really have a serious problem with these sort of games and his hypocrisy. i will hang up and listen to the response. thank you. host: final thoughts. guest: the north american free trade alliance was not authored by rahm emanuel. i think it was republican- inspired and has a lot of pluses and minuses to it. unfortunately, it has sort of been blown aside by our trade with china and off-shoring with china and other countries where the labor is a lot cheaper. i'm not sure how you get that genie back in the bottle. changing corporate tax rates to encourage investment in manufacturing in this country is the way to go. host: joe mcquaid, publisher of the "new hampshire's union

leader." -- "new hampshire union leader." joe mcquaid, thanks, as always, for joining us. guest: thank you to c-span. host: in a moment, we will round out this sunday edition of the "washington journal" with the author of this book "50 jobs in 50 states daniel seddiqui."-- "50 jobs in 50 states." his name is daniel seddiqui. be right back. >> this past july 4, in a ceremony held in the boston

harbor, simon winchester became an american citizen. >> i decided that i would take all the necessary steps in the exam. i got one of the questions wrong. i have an australian friend who is also up for citizenship. i rang her and i said, i got one of the questions wrong. she said, not the one about what color is the white house? no, that one i got. i feel a fool confessing it to you. it was what was the -- what is the american national anthem? i blurted out "america, the beautiful." >> watch the rest of our interview with simon winchester tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> the newly designed c-span

website has 11 video choices, making it easier for you to watch events. it has easily -- easy scrolling. you can receive program alerts for when your program is scheduled to air. there also cites -- sites for our popular series and programs. there is a channel finder. all at the all-new c-span.org. >> the story of the civil-rights

movement cannot be told without birmingham, alabama. this weekend, but tv and american history tb look behind the scenes -- "booktv," and "american history tv" look behind the scenes. even under hazardous conditions, people fought to work at the cotton mill. on c-span3, professor jonathan bass on how martin luther king, jr.'s, "letters from a birmingham jail" set the tone for the movement. tune in at 6:00 p.m. eastern as the discussionth

of birmingham during the great discretion -- birmingham during the great depression. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we would like you to meet daniel seddiqui, a native californian, author of "50 jobs in 50 states." tell us the idea of where this came from. guest: the book came from my struggle in finding a job. i felt like i was the unluckiest job seeker in the world when i graduated from college. i was rejected in every interview. i thought i tried everything. i addressed to impress. building my resume. taking interviewing courses. having a nice personality, getting along with the interviewer. i ended up with nothing.

it got to the point where my mom was like, you need to go see a therapist and see if something is wrong with you. she thought i might be self sabotaging. host: part of the subtitle -- how i turned rejection into opportunity and dreams into reality. you went to college. your degree is in? guest: economics. host: couldn't get a job. how many folks did you talk to? guest: i landed 40 interviews. i thought i did everything right. i created powerpoint presentations. i did my research. i still never got a break. a got to the point where i started losing a lot of self- esteem -- it got to the point where i started losing a lot of self-esteem and confidence, waking up with no purpose in life. when i went to see a therapist, my mom sat in once. she was expressing concerns and

disappointment. the therapist was floundering. host: so, you decided to travel around the whole country. guest: yeah, because i thought my purpose -- i was suffering through some much rejection in life. it might have been the reason, to fulfill this mission, this very ambitious mission. if i could not find one job, how was i going to find 50? host: so, you did. what did you actually set out to do with these jobs, and how did you get them after so much a failure? guest: i was looking for jobs that reflect the culture and economy of every state. i was not only interested in turning my life around and seeking different opportunities. i also wanted to see this country and what really shapes us. that is why i chose jobs that reflect the culture and economy. i did brain biology in

washington. i was a park ranger -- i did marine biology in washington. i was a park ranger in wy oming. i went in with no experience. how i got the jobs, i can share with the viewers how i did that. host: here are some of the photographs from inside the book. baseball scout. a shot from maine, our guest daniel seddiqui with a lobster. your experience is not unlike that of many other college graduates. what is one thing that he learnt, traveling around the country -- tha tyot you learned traveling around the country?

guest: it was the ultimate challenge. i really put myself to the test. being a long-distance runner, i love doing something rewarding and prospering. that is what i learned, that i was a capable person and i just had to prove that could do anything as long as i set myself to it. i got to the point where i was so aggressive on getting the jobs, i would have done anything. border patrol in arizona was a difficult job to get. i would have done anything to get that job -- to stealing someone's gun. i always find resource book, roundabout ways, which i can discuss further. host: let me get a phone numbers on the screen. our guest is -- let me get the phone numbers on the screen.

our guest is daniel seddiqui, author of "50 jobs in 50 states." what was your secret? guest: perseverance. it is all about being persistent. dealing with rejection and coping with failure. dealing with rejection, which i faced 5000 times to find 50 jobs, was a very hard thing to stomach. but i never took -- do not take rejection personally. even if it may be personal, do not take it personal. perseverance also has to do with failing. a lot of people fear failure. that was something i did not fear at all. i already felt like i failed in

my -- with my degree, finding a job with my field of study. but i was not going to fail in life. that is what perseverance is. that is the message of my journey. host: what was your favorite? what was your least favorite? guest: my favorite was being a dietitian in mississippi. i have my degree in economics, nothing relevant. it was a fulfilling career. 30% of the state is classified as obese. it is an alarming statistic. it would be rewarding work. also being a weatherman was fun.

a lot of fun jobs held there that i was totally unaware of. meat packing or lobster fishing was probably the most uncomfortable position for me. meat packing, as you can imagine, it was very gruesome. it was uncomfortable. but i talked about going out of your comfort zone. host: you have a degree in economics. what else have you learned? we sit here every day and talk about economic conditions. what did you learn that you could share with our viewers? guest: about the economy? host: yes. guest: these are jobs that really shape each state and each part of the country. i noticed a lot of things that were changing. when real estate went down, logging went down.

it was hard to land a lot of these jobs in advance because some of them with a lot of business before i got there. i always had to find an alternative backup plan. i did see a lot of things. i covered a lot of different industries. as long as people are innovative and resourceful and take chances, we will be ok. host: first call, fort myers, florida. what did you do in florida? guest: i was an egyptian stilt walker at universal studios. why are we doing this to our college students? not releasing the money from the big corporations. i just saw an article about las

vegas. it is loss vegas because it is really going downhill. those people who live there spend money. if they could make money. that would keep the economy going. this casino, hotels, people like that, they are the ones that ought to be lobbying our congress to get the jobs back in the u.s. host: tough times out there. guest: i have been in their shoes, but we do have to be innovative. there are opportunities out there. there are 3 million job openings right now nationwide. if you are a recent college graduate, you have to suffer a little humility, too. just because you have a degree

it does not mean that you are entitled to a job. you have to be willing to do things out of your comfort zone. even network with strangers. i did not know anyone before started this journey. i was not working with strangers, the more people you meet, the more opportunities to create. host: our guest worked on cars in michigan. who did you work for in michigan? guest: a small auto shop in detroit. caller: good morning. this was pretty exciting. i have not meant other people -- i graduated from college in 2006. i am originally from michigan. i have worked in 13 different states. over the last five years. trying to find something

permanent where i could move home. especially with detroit, it is hard to find work here. i had to leave, you know? i really like this. i give the same thing. guest: that is what it takes. being willing to relocate and seek opportunities elsewhere. you are a perfect example of what i talk about. with a recent college graduate, no mortgage, no family. you have the flexibility to be able to go out. caller: daniel, thank you for taking my call. i have a couple of questions. did you have student loans? how did you pay for your undergrads daddies? how did you finance -- how did you get started in your journey?

did you have support from parents? this bill i wish. -- guest: i wish. i had financial aid to go to college. i had partial scholarships because i did track and field. before i started, i was three years unemployed before i started on this mission. i had absolutely no resources financially at all. i was even seeking sponsorships and everyone turned me down. i was going to take on this journey and go for it and let would never happen happened. i left with not even a dime to my name. never used credit before, never even had a car before. i bought the jeep cherokee before i hit the road. no turning back.

it was interesting. my dad gave me a $250 check before i left and said, we will see you in three weeks. that motivated me more than anything. i was going to fulfill this the matter what happened. host: do you have student dead? guest: not anymore -- the u.s. didn't get to -- do you have student debt? ) not anymore. i was offered a full-time job at the end of each week by 95% of them. that shows there are flaws in the employment process. i am studying economics

throughout college. having that degree and no one willing to give me a chance, but now i am going as a marine biologist, a meteorologist, and i am turning full-time job offers. host: warranty kit -- weren't intended to keep one of those jobs? -- weren't you tempted to keep one of those jobs? guest of course. i was not going to let anything hinder my goal. host: besides coming on programs like this, what else are you doing right now? guest: i decided to do something similar to my experience. i am working with a college in virginia and in setting up the jobs for them. five jobs, five weeks during a summer semester. it is a accredited program.

it will help them build their social skills and network and awareness of different possibilities. a lot of kids have no experience in the real working world at all and i was one of them. they do not even know what is out there and what would be fulfilling. host: moving on to washington, george, good morning. caller: i will be the doubting thomas. i am a retired law enforcement officer. daniel is indicating that he has been a border patrol agent and a park ranger. i note to get those credentials, you have to go through the federal law enforcement training center. i am wondering how you pull that off.

did you become a full-fledged certified peace officer for the border patrol? thank you for c-span. guest: that is a great question. as i mentioned, i did try to find jobs -- when i was looking to be a border patrol agent, i did call up local sectors in arizona and i told them, i want to work as a borrower shall agent. they said, come on in and apply. it is about 17 weeks of training. i said, i do not have 17 weeks to invest. i only want to work for a week. they laughed at me and hung up the phone on me. i called back and said, how can i go through this process? i was going to get this job no matter what it took. i wrote to the headquarters here in d.c. about what i wanted to do.

they said it is very impossible. i love the word impossible because that is a challenge. they said the only way you can do that is to earn press credentials. i called up all the local arizona papers and asked if i could write a guest article. i had no writing background either. finally, some publication picked me up. i was not a certified border bridge will agent, but i was able to do all the duties they would do. i was in the car, carrying the gun, i have a uniform and a badge. by the end of the week, they said, if you are willing to stay, we are willing to hire you. host: al from arizona. caller: i have the same problem. i came to the states at the age

of 32 and i had to find a job. i dressed nicely. i had a nice personality. i always applied for jobs. if i get could get turned down, i would be very pleasant. i would come back the next day and i kept on coming back. i should respect for the place. i should respect for them. they began to respect me. that is how i got a job. guest: that is what it takes. maintaining that positive attitude. i is that a lot of struggles during the journey, but i never lost my positive attitude. there are some times i have been so persistent that employers are like, all right, let's give this guy a chance. there were times i was so resist -- persistent that people wanted to put out a restraining order on me. it is your judgment.

you do not want to push and not get to -- host: where did you live? guest: i was planning to sleep on the back of my jeep the whole journey. every monday, people would offer me a place in their own homes. typically my employer or my co- worker. they would say, where are you staying? sometimes i was intimidated. i was working in south dakota and a rugged cowboy came up to me and said, where are you staying? i said, hopefully, not with you. i was envisioning that he was going to bring me to a restive trailer and i was going to sleep on a dirty carpet. i decided, let's whatever happened happened and really opened my mind.

not judge a book by its cover. i did find a host family in every single state. host: there is another twitter message. they want to know what you did in alaska. guest: i did not work on an offshore reaig. i did petroleum engineering for chevron in houston, texas. what was the last question? host: alaska? guest: i was an outdoor photographer for the "national geographic." host: explain the petroleum engineering parts. here is the photo and oklahoma, by the way. guest: they got word that i was looking for a petroleum

engineering job. they said, we have an entrance to pick it off for you. they heard that, i was cold calling. that is what networking is all about. i was hoping they could tell me find a network. that is what resourcefulness is. there is a lot of people willing to help you. if you are willing to work and you have a good attitude, there are a lot of people willing to help. host: here is a call from scotland. guest: it is very interesting to hear your tails. -- tales. with your ethnicity, it did you ever have the sense there was any hesitation in taking you on?

yes, that is a great question -- guest: that is a great question. i cannot answer why i got rejected so many times out of college. it could have been just fade. my last name has never hindered my success. i've never been questioned. nobody asks at all, what is your background, or anything like that. i would say, i am a california boy. host: atlanta, georgia, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, daniel. you can hear my accent, i am an immigrant. i was wondering, if you spoke

another language, and would that have enhanced your choices? did the dirty making more sympathetic -- did the jury it make you more sympathetic? >> did the journey make a more sympathetic? guest: my next journey might be working with illegal immigrants in california. it is really good to understand different struggling and secluded regions of the country. i want to go to mississippi delta to understand obesity. i want to work with illegal immigrants in california. host: one twitter of your -- the viewer wants to ask you if any of the jobs offered retirement.

guest: they offered health care. i do not know about retirement. host: one point was inspired to send the way allen ". 99% of success is just showing up. guest: i thought -- i think they thought it was a prank. i just thought it was a prank. he is entertaining the idea. when i was actually there, 99%.

host: arlington, texas. caller: i have a two-part question. in each and every job that you applied for, did you tell them that you plan to work a short time and quit? i find it hard to believe that someone -- the sad part of my question, having -- the second part of my question, what would be happiest in doing forever? guest: i would tell every employer that i was planning to work for a week. reasons for hiring me, everyone had a different reason. that was one of the biggest obstacles, why would anyone want to invest time to train me? sometimes i had to sign nondisclosure agreements.

i decided that this college program that i had been working on an partnering up with different universities, that is my long-term career objective right now. that would be rewarding. i change my major in college for times. host: did you get a lot of local press coverage? guest: sometimes 18 times in just one week. it was a lot. that is what i talk about in my book. the marketing value, creating value in new as a person. you always have to present yourself in a positive light. host: a couple of e-mails.

here is another one. a lot of times on this program, we try to pull the conversation back to the role of government. the you have a sense -- do you have a sense of the role of any aspect of government in what we're talking about? a young person going out, getting a job. did you hear anything that was interesting and around the country from employers? guest: i tried to steer away from the political aspects of my journey. i was trying to be a job seeker. organically, just trying to find jobs is like everybody else. i do not think i was in a place long enough to understand the political aspects of things. i was not going into a new place

and buying a house or renting an apartment. it was interesting, though. about entitlements, in my age group, a lot of people would be shocked that i turned on my own reality television show. i thought, i want to be a real person. i do not want to be posed. i really hope that people can take inspiration and be informed of what it takes to create a number of 34 yourself. he really choose your own destiny. i never thought the government or any political decisions will

choose my destiny for me. that was up to me. host: we have a call from new jersey. where you did what? guest: i worked as a counselor from the girls and boys club. i put more pressure on myself and got more aggressive and sometimes those were the most memorable. caller: good morning. hi, daniel. i wanted to let you know that everything you are saying is right on. your two most important points are not working and going outside of your box. my friends and i both became unemployed did the same time. we're getting very frustrated. so we decided to take things into our own hands and make lemonade out of lemons. but we started our own website

specifically for unemployed women trying to teach them skills, it not working, resumes, . we started unemployedwoman.com. people do need to take risks. now working is so important today. i just love everything that you are saying. i am very excited to get your book and put your book on my website to help a lot of other unemployed people. i think everything you are doing is wonderful. congratulations. guest: thank you. she talked about risk-taking. taking a risk is all about, what are you willing to discover? i would not have experienced any of this. i would not be here today if i did not take the risk. this was a very challenging journey.

there is one element that i did not talk about, which is insurance. finding a job as a very daunting, very tiresome. keep on going. my mission devolved as time went on. it is from viewers like you -- i wanted to write this book because there is a lot of personal experience and strategies are used that i wanted to share. that is what kept me going. halfway point, i wanted to stop and give up. i was so tired and the drives were at 600 to 800 miles. making cheese, blogging job was very long. before it was a self fulfillment goal, but then it came about this leadership role antel been all the other job seekers. -- this leadership role and

helping all the other job seekers. caller: his book just triggered something with me. both public and private corporate job this and his ability to find work even though he did not have credentials. i think a lot of people would like to fill these jobs that are out there, but not necessarily the did they do not necessarily have the training, the credentials. maybe they have taken a degree that is not marketable. nonetheless, they have shown some persistent and discipline and their good people. good to speak to that? guest: sure. 80% of college graduates in debt

in a career that they did not study. -- 88% of college graduates in the up in a career that they did not study. like you mentioned, i went into these jobs with no experience, but i learned on the job. i was a quick study. every job that i landed was in a different strategy. i created -- there are strategies that you can try out. there is no wrong way to find a job. host: our guest has been daniel seddiqui. his book is "50 jobs in 50 states."

there is a website as well. thank you for being here. >> we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 with another edition of "washington journal." we will also talk with carol rosenberg. that is on tomorrows "washington journal." journal."