stricter rules for buying and selling stocks for members of congress. ry moran from texas about the payroll tax cut. and then our guest is drake bennett of "bloomberg business week." >> this is a make or break moment for the middle class and for all of those who are fighting to get into the middle class. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: that was president obama in kansas, about 50 miles southwest of kansas city, talking about the economy and the middle-class. we want to get your reaction on "washington journal" to president obama's 55-minute speech yesterday. 202 is the area code.

we divided our numbers a little bit differently this segment -- of course, you can always send a tweet as well -- hyphen in cspan in that case. and our e-mail address, yes, there is a hyphen. finally, you continue the conversation on facebook. no hypen. a little bit more from the present. >> in 1910, teddy roosevelt came here, and he laid out his vision

for what he called a new nationalism. our country, he said, means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. host: and the front page of "the new york times" -- this story, by the way, is by a.g. sulberger from osawatomie, kansas.

that is the front page of "the new york times." and when you go to the jump on page a18 --

again, that is from "the new york times." i want to put the phone lines back on the screen. we divided them a little differently -- we are going to begin in

oklahoma city, oklahoma. making between 50 and 150. caller: marquel. i make around $70,000 a year. host: what did you think of the speech? caller: i think he knocked it out of the ballpark. host: why? caller: he hit some points that -- that need to be said. he needs to call the republican out -- how they are trying to put all the burden of taxes on the middle-class and did not having the people of wealth pay their fair share with all of their loopholes and all the advantages that they have the that we don't have, normal, middle-class working families. host: there have been some proposals, such as to lose the mortgage interest deduction. what if that happened to you? would that affect you?

caller: it would not affect me because it -- i do not own my home currently. host: hutcheson, kansas. sheila, under 50,000. caller: i own a small business and i have for 30 years. item one of those rugged individualists that pays and pays -- i am one of those rugged individualists. it would be easier for me to continue to provide jobs if the new government programs were not putting me out of business and just cutting the off at the need. host: what do you mean? caller: the government is over- regulating, micromanaging. almost every business in my town is my size. we are all little rub it individualist's which, they said, that is just not working. it really was working before the government stepped in and said you have to have this, more licenses, you have to do things this way. we just can't make it if we

can't run our own businesses. host: the president's speech yesterday, from what you heard about it or what you saw, what did you think? caller: i did not think he hit it out of the ballpark. i think less regulation, i think less government. government is the problem. we can afford to live and we would have more money in our pockets to provide more jobs if the government was not expanding so much faster than any other segment of the jobs. host: joseph here in washington, d.c., makes over 150,000 did caller: how are you, sir? yes -- i think the president, he hit it out of the ballpark. i do also owned a consultant firm. if there were no regulations, i do not think we would be in the business. i think he is absolutely right,

helping the country grow. host: do you consider yourself a little class? caller: yes. host: can you live on that well in washington? caller: i do very well with that money in washington. caller: thank you for calling in. the front page of "the washington post," the lead story. the gop split on the payroll tax cut. it is an issue we will talk with senator jerry moran about later.

but right now, we are getting your reaction to president obama's speech yesterday in kansas. wisconsin -- stephen, makes between 50,000 and 150,000. caller: under the bush tax cuts, the middle-class received the biggest benefits, over 5.7%, so, if you made $50,000, you would be getting back 2500. he wants to take that away and give us 1000 only? he is strong now and he should quit his spending and to let governor walker did in this stte and quit the spending and get the economy back. a u.s. house of representatives has sent 20 bills to the senate but harry reid can the president to not want to bring them up. it is all about cutting

spending and saving money for this country. host: can you give us an update on wisconsin about the recall effort for the governor? caller: it is going ahead. and i see many lies given out by the unions, the greedy, big unions that are running it, running false ads. host: have you seen any polls? caller: i have not seen any polls, but from what i know, all my friends and all of the people that i talk to, i think big labor is going to purr. host: bill is in andover minnesota, also makes between 50,000 and 150,000. caller: i thought he knocked it out of the park. i am in agreement with a lot of what he is doing. we are in a situation where we

have the largest beneficiaries of our country controlling more and more of everything, whether it is the media, the words that get out, going back to levy -- leveling the playing field, to my estimation, i think the best thing we can do is levelling out the playing field creates more innovation for more people, gives more people more opportunity to innovate, to invent, to create products that are innovative. any time you get to the point where you control everything -- everything and no one can innovate and even copyright goes too far where you maybe have one tv that watches one program for any reason, we have gone way over board, i think, in control.

and levelling out the playing field, everyone would have the opportunity with more cash, more opportunities to innovate, more opportunities to compete. that is what we were all about, i thought. host: what kind of work you do in andover? caller: i used to be a postmaster and i retired. i ran into some many situations, even service companies with mortgages where the cheap people with fees and a lot of people get to the situation. my background is in finance. i used to run down to the library -- we had a little investment group, when i was sorting mail, we try to get a bunch of people together to start investing and then you come to find out that these rating agencies, standard and

poor's and all of the rest of the rating agencies are working for the money that they get when they are supposed to because i- government agencies that are honest with everybody. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you for calling in. steve makes over 150,000. what did you think of the speech? caller: i am disgusted with the president and his speech and all the way around. what is america? you may be what ever you resolve the to be, but you have to resolve to be something first. i grew up poor, i lived in apartment in southeast washington. my father was retired on disability and never owned a house. i am a construction worker and i owned three houses. all you have to do is get up and go to work every day -- and there is opportunity there. i have been in the construction business for 37 years and i only missed two months of work in

that entire time. i am so sick and tired of everybody calling and crying and complaining. pull yourself up by the bootstraps and go to work and do your job. host: eric in atlanta makes under $50,000. caller: yes. what i would like to say is president obama, first of all, must get out of the republican policy -- bush tax cuts, medicare part d and the two wars need to be stopped. he needs to implement democratic tax policies, progressive policies. he is a democratic president and what he is doing, -- this is the reason the economy has not come back. medicaid and social security folks have not had a raise in a few years. this is detracting from the economy. people spend their money every month. they did not say. he must look at the overall

picture. the republicans will do everything they can. this is their only hope to get back in office. what ever it takes. it is part ratio but it is part power struggle. host: here are some twitter comments we received this morning -- we have also received several facebook comments and here are a

couple of them. beginning with angela -- here is a little bit more of the president yesterday in kansas. >> in fact, they want to go back to the same policies that

stacked the deck against middle- class americans for way too many years. the philosophy is simple -- we are betting -- better off when -- everyone is for themselves and a play by their own rules. i am here to say, they are wrong. host: next is tommy from hampton, virginia. caller: i was very disappointed because it seems to me president obama is only concerned about -- actually getting those votes. he does not want to take ownership. he needs to let the payroll taxes expire and the bush tax cuts expire. everyone should sacrifice. this game of the republicans -- that the republicans are playing, that we need to reduce taxes for the rich, and the game democrats are planning, we need to get more benefits or programs to the middle class -- everyone should just stop and be serious

about debt reduction so we can get america back on track. i was really disappointed in president obama's speech. he does not want to take ownership. he does not want to be the one to take the blame for saying let everything expire. he just wants to play the blame game. host: server about that, thought you were done. that was tommy from hampton, virginia. from "the washington post" --

again, that is from "the washington post." fran is in texas, and makes between 50,000 and 150,000. caller: good morning. how are you? president obama makes a good speech. it is what he does. but it is not his words that count, it is his actions. his actions have failed miserably. you can say tax the rich all you want to, but until they reformed the tax code, give us the flat tax, the millionaires will always find a way to keep their money. and people don't seem to understand that. you can tax them five times as

much, but as long as they can hire lobbyists and lawyers, they are going to get around it. host: silver hill, alabama. mary makes under 50,000. caller: i am way under -- i am a disabled retire read, and i am still upset about what the president is trying to pull -- i am a disabled retiree. number one, he parses what theodore roosevelt was about. theodore roosevelt was the one who took over panama and built the canal. he walked softly and carried a big stick and went into japan. if you want to be theodore roosevelt, i don't think mr. obama is doing it internationally, let alone here at home. roosevelt had trouble with j.p.

morgan and the gold standard, and i don't think after mr. roosevelt left office, the roosevelts gave up all their money. it seemed like they stayed wealthy, and his bull moose party went nowhere. and i love the people who call in, too, like the retired postmaster getting 150,000 a year -- maybe some of these federal employees who have gotten grandiose retirements and health benefits should look into their own souls and say, you know, maybe i have gouged the american people with my over indulgence in my retirement. mr. obama, again, was supposed to be a uniter, bringing everybody together, but since the cambridge police situation, he has done everything to divide us, whether it is class warfare, racially, anything,

anything. host: we will leave it there, mary. from "the hill" newspaper, corzine gets second subpoenaed to testify. and from "the wall street journal" -- "mf global collapse felt and farm country."

that hearing where mr. corzine, former senator, will be appearing, will be live at c- span.org beginning at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. you can watch it on line. there is another hearing that will be held, another major hearing with attorney general eric holder tomorrow. that is also at 9:30 a.m., and got -- that will be on c-span 3, about operation fast and furious. again, tomorrow morning, 9:30 a.m. on c-span 3. back to your comments and calls about president obama's speech yesterday in kansas. tommy tweets in --

detroit, michigan, making between $50,000 and wanted a $50,000 a year. what did you think of the speech? caller: i think it is a very good speech but i am quite sick and tired of hearing where we are now, not based on where we were two years ago before he took over. d whattime we realize kind of situation we were in at that time. not blaming, but realizing where we were then and where we are now. it is time to look at that and come to the realization that we have to get things corrected, and obama is on his way to doing that. host: thank you for coming in this morning. a couple of e-mails --

and from glenda from kentucky -- next call on the president's speech in kansas -- paul from alexandria, virginia. he makes over 150k. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is said to me. i did not think i would ever in my life see this situation in america. i am into the intake business and we do big business, a lot of business. -- i am in the antique.

it is a shame the way it is going on in america. who do you think was buying all the cars on black friday? the and you see that spending is up? the numbers cannot add up. who is spending the money? there is a lot of money. they are holding on it and not doing anything and they are letting the country go to hell. host: what kind of work you do, paul? the front page of "the washington times" this morning --

next call comes from colleen in seattle who makes under $50,000. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i think the president hit the speech out of the ballpark. the american people need to understand that he is trying. the only people who are dividing this country are the pessimistic folks that do not want to pitch in and help this president. he has had every obstacle from

the republicans and the republicans know the only reason they are fighting this man is because of his nationality. his policies have been blocked. they are not even confirming most of his appointees. they say they are overregulated. nobody is being appointed to over-regulate them. the policies of bush have destroyed the country. people need to understand, when they woke up three years ago with no 401k or house, this did not happen overnight -- overnight but through a failed policy. host: thank you for calling in. a little bit more of the president from kansas yesterday. >> america was built on the idea of broad based prosperity,

strong consumers across the country. that is why a ceo like henry ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that he made. host: beverly from phoenix, good morning to you. caller: good morning, peter. i wish i made close to $50,000 but i only made $20,000. host: is that on social security, beverly? caller: yes, i wanted to talk to that misinformed man from wisconsin. president obama tried to last year when the taxes were due to expire, he tried to eliminate -- to keep the taxes on anyone paying $150,000. and the republicans would have no part of that.

instead of watching fox news, they should turn to c-span and watched the hearings that go on. he would be a more informed citizen. and it is coming up for expiration at the end of december. and the republicans are again blocking his trying to eliminate the middle class under $150,000. and the republicans again, they are not going to have any part of it. so he asked to let the whole thing expired just to get the economy back on its feet but that man from wisconsin has to blame the republicans for it, not the democrats. host: good to hear from you, beverly, and if we do not hear from you before christmas, happy holidays. a couple of the males.

president obama's speech clearly gave us the choice of being cynical -- another e-mail from bop in venice, florida. back to your calls on president obama's speech on the middle class yesterday. next up, waldorf, md., harold between $50,000.100 $50,000. caller: thank you for taking my call. i thought the speech was very good. i think he spoke well of and he

very well defends the middle class. i think that every effort that he has put forth has been to help to sustain shrinking portion of our economy. after all, without consumers in the economy, we're not going to have of viable economy at all and he is doing a great job to get the manufacturing base restored by increasing it by 50% over the next four years. i think he has made a great effort at that. i think what the president's critics and the democratic party are missing is the fact that without the majority in the house of representatives, and without a supermajority in the senate, the president has great limitations against him. and we need to recognize that is not just his efforts that alone needs to be to turn around the economy, he also needs to have the majority in the congress. we need to send people to the congress who will work with him, who will help to restore the middle-class.

the only thing i can say now is that the republicans do welcome the opportunity to see the president fail at all costs. and so the republicans remain in office the way that they are in the majority, and essentially the affected majority in the senate, it is almost 50/50, then the president is not going to be able to enact this federal law in order to help the middle class. we really need to do that and i think that people need to take that into account. thank you for taking my call, peter. host: thank you. the next call comes from the suburbs here as well. peter in silver springs, making over $150,000. caller: that last caller, i think he said it really well. it made it -- he made a lot of great poise. i think the president made a terrific speech. a couple of other things that stood out for me was the way

that the president said that education is the best path to the middle class and it needs to be a real national priority. i could not agree more. i used to live in california, where the republican government there used to cut, cut, cut, they are all cutting education. and now what they have is a big pile of debt and a lot of unemployment is pretty clear where that leads. and trickle-down economics, that was worth a try in the 1980's, but now we know it does not work. i think the republicans need to abandon that. and i hope the country can see through all of the span we get from that side. and i think they are all in for the 1%. host: thank you for calling. this is how the "wall street journal" played the store. and also, the 70th anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor.

most papers have an article or two about the issue of pearl harbor. but this is how the "washington post" plays it. how word spread from honolulu, over airwaves and in a sprint. on the first time and on december 7, 1941, millions of americans were getting their news about the attack on pearl harbor through a person named ruthjane rumelt.

that is in the kit you washington post" this morning. also we wanted to let you know that on american history tv, c- span3 on the weekends, there will be full coverage of the 70th anniversary of pearl harbor with video and interviews from pearl harbor, and collins, all day long, that is american history tv. you can go to c-span.org and get all the details. go there and you'll see in this series, you will see a lot of the different c-span series that are available and go to ahtv, american history tv, and on book

tv this weekend as well, a new book, december 19, 1941. and now will be saturday on both tv which is c-span2 on the weekends. u.s. office quiet aid to european debt talks. senior u.s. officials are planning a behind-the-scenes role in the efforts to contain it european debt crisis, cajoling their region's leaders to take steps to calm the markets and try to mediate among competing governments. that is in the kit you washington post" this morning.

back teacher calls on the president's speech yesterday. under $150,000, hello. caller: i would like to say that i agree with most of the callers. the lady on disability, she was a beneficiary of democratic programs and she is not going to vote for them, she is shooting yourself in the foot. trickle-down economics means that money goes into the top and it remains to the top and it is supposed to trickle-down to the workers and create demand. what happens is it trickles out overseas with the money. and everyone else is bank account. no jobs and money. thank you, and i would suggest they go see the graphs of wages

that have declined since gingrich and the republicans took over in the 1980's. it has been a complete disaster. you might look at that one. and last but not least, i love the president's speech. i cannot even vote for anyone who says that women's rights that were so hard fought for the 1960's, thank you. host: thank you for calling in. a couple of facebook comments. that facebook, and you can continue the conversation there throughout the day. that will be posted all the long. a couple of more stories we want to get to the full week and this first segment this morning.

on the ropes, gop seeks counterpunch in fights over taxes. that is in "the hill" newspaper this morning. this is in "roll-call." a prankster sent reporters up a press release tuesday night claiming that members of the powerful service employees international union had voted to

take back that governments -- -- the group's endorsement of president obama. the release it in boxes just before midnight bearing the name of the spokesman. it included a fake " from the president mary king henry that claimed obama had not delivered enough change. someone is playing a prank in using my e-mail address, the real spokesman told talking points memo early this morning. the letter issued a statement affirming the union support for the president. that is in "roll call" newspaper this morning. we want to remind you that today republican candidates court jewish gop, this is on c-span. c-span.org, and we will cover it there. it is the largest gathering of jewish republicans and republican presidential candidates, as they take questions from the group at an all-day conference in washington, d.c.

chris christie is the keynote at the jewish republican coalition conference. three more candidates speaking after. you can see the schedule to year, beginning at 9:15 a.m. with rick santorum, jon huntsman, mitt romney, and then gov. christie at 12:15 p.m., newt gingrich, rick perry, and michele bachmann are all in the afternoon. and this is available to watch at c-span.org. north carolina, dave, between $50,000 and $150,000, what did you think of the president's speech yesterday? caller: his speech was ok on the face of it. but i think it was irrelevant, actually. because for instance, are senator, kay hagan in north carolina, is a very strong supporter of the military. and it is my opinion that one of the things we need to do to help

this country along is to have a severe contraction in the military. and any need to curtail business down and they have all, there would be a big hue and cry about that. and it goes down the line, you had someone call up to their retired at age 51 from the social service, and you ask the caller earlier if they would be willing to do away with the homeowners exemption. the point is, once you start taking these goodies off the table and there are a lot more goodies that we do not even know about that belong to outside groups, there is going to be a lot of opposition. and i do not think that you can overcome that opposition the way the congresses. so obama gives the speech, but the way things are set up in this country, it is not possible to get anything done. host: thank you for calling in this morning, david.

from sky news out of britain, secretary hillary clinton met with the syrian opposition in geneva and urged them to build a society that is free of the whims of a dictator. in this article from the sky, it goes on to say that a senior obama administration official confirmed that robert ford would be returning after the administration argued that its presence was important for a advancing u.s. policy goals. he is the ambassador to syria recalled in october but he is now returning to syria. according to this article. from the hill, a gop senator says that support for a obama or ran's policy has collapsed. -- obama iran policy has collapsed.

that is from the hill. this is from the "wall street journal." the top military commander in afghanistan is privately recommending staving off new u.s. troop reductions until 2014, a position that could put him at odds with a white house eager to wind down the 10-year- old war.

again, that is in the kit you will street journal." back to your calls on the president's speech in kansas yesterday. we're going to go to ron in illinois. under $50,000 is what ron makes. you are on the "washington journal." what did you think of the president's speech? caller: it is the most articulate man that has held that office since the 1980's. i have not missed an election since i was eligible to vote. this man, i'm more proud of than any president we have had. saying that, i've never been ashamed of what goes on in washington than i ever have.

my highlight of his speech was the fair playing field. i think that the tax rates for the reached are too high, however, the loopholes and deductions that they get which brings their money down is very unfair to the average man. whirlpool did not lay off 4000 people because they need more tax cuts, more and less regulation. they laid off 4000 people because no one can afford to buy their appliances. i pray to the american people, keep an honest, open mind when they listen to all that goes on in whatever news program they listen to. and that we can maintain growth, fairness in our country in the future. thank you very much and have a great day. host: thank you, ron. here is a tweed.

this is from maverick. and elise tweets. the next call is from virginia. sylvester, it is your turn on the w g." under $50,000, what did you think of the president's speech? caller: i thought was great. i think i saw it twice. anyway, my comment would be, i think those that are making $1 million or above should welcome bringing back the draft. that way we all could contribute and it would not feel that they have an advantage, because we all share in it. that is my comment.

host: what about the president's speech grab you yesterday? caller: i think the president is great. i just hate all of this opposition to him. he is looking out for all americans when he is looking out for the poor, not just the wealthy. and if we all had the draft, then the wealthy could keep their money and we could keep our blood. host: preston, va. here in the suburbs, $50,000 and $150,000. caller: i saw the president's speech and it was disappointing to me. it was a very broad, and big u.s. speech, and i think what it takes away is the basis of america is that no one knows anyone else a living. -- owes anyone else living. i was 18 when i had -- i did it

without taking a loan from the government. i worked hard and went to school. it is unfair that people are taking handouts. work hard and you can make your money. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am in the financial world. host: house business? caller: business is actually going well. host: thank you for calling in. stan, under $50,000. caller: all of these people calling up and crying racism bothers me. i am one of the people, i am a white guy, i voted for obama. the reason i voted for obama is because he gives a great speech, just like he did yesterday. the problem is, once he got into office, he did not do what he said he wanted to do. i am under $50,000, and i have

been busting my butt my whole life since i was 16 years old. i have worked. it seems that what he wants to do is take more money from me and give it to people who i know there are people that live in this town and all over the country, when times were good, they would not show up for work. they would not take jobs. the poor people get the being paid for, they get free cellphones, and what else can we give them? what i want to give people is an education. i think that stops spending all this money and giving them a billion dollars a day, and all of these other countries that we're giving money to, the people that do not even like us that are with osama bin laden, we continue to finance them in our own country here, what we should do is to take the money

come up finance people's education. if you want to talk about the poor people, give them more and more, let's give them an education and give them an opportunity. people refused to go to work and people will not go to school and prove their situation -- and improve their situation, i did not want to give them a handout. host: we will leave it there. a couple of more facebook comments. again, you can keep commenting on our facebook page. that will be up all day. from the "washington post" this

morning. of rare public speech. the leader of lebanon's hezbollah movement made an unusual appearance -- that is in the "washington post." and this is in the kit you new york times calls " this morning. joining the nuclear arms race. the saudi raese and a remark designed to send chills through out the obama administration and its allies suggested that the kingdom might consider producing nuclear weapons if it found

itself between atomic arsenals in iran and israel. again, in the kit you new york times," and an article that you've all heard about, the faa chief leaving the job after his arrest. he resigned on tuesday after being arrested and accused of drunken-driving over the weekend. that is in every other newspaper this morning. pennsylvania, michael, over $150,000, you get the last word. what is your thoughts on the president's speech yesterday? caller: i think the president is trying to do a real tough job of achieving some balance, and i think it is sadly lacking. i disagree with actually

extending any tax cuts, payroll or otherwise, right now because the country is running broke. however, i actually approved of increasing the tax rates on the high earners, which includes myself. but we have to spend the money wisely and that is where i think we're missing the vote. -- we're missing the boat. we're not investing in the education or infrastructure that will keep us competitive. i'm afraid that 20 years or 30 years out, the children that we are handing stuff down to, my grandchildren, they will not have much left. there will be rebuilding from scratch. so that concerns me. as i said, it is not so much how much money you take in our how it is allocated, it is also how are you investing? not to spending, but investing. host: michael, thank you for calling in. we have three guest coming up. we have about two hours left. in about 40 minutes or so, senator jerry moran will be out

here to take your calls about the payroll tax reduction. he is a republican from kansas. coming up next, congressman tim walz who is a sponsor of the legislation on congressional insider trading. ♪ ♪ >> have no health care, the most expensive single thing, have no and barman of controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and you do not care about anything that make money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.

ross perot spoke out about trade issues during the 1992 presidential debate. the billionaire businessman made two attempts for the presidency, the first time getting over 19 million votes. more popular votes than any third-party candidate in american history. although the loss, he has had a lasting influence on american politics. is our final candidate in our 14-week series "the contenders." to preview other video on ross perot and see all the programs from our series, go to c- span.org. >> december 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy. in this sunday for 24 hours, american history tv looks at the japanese attack on american military forces at pearl harbor, including the seventh anniversary commemorative ceremony overlooking the u.s.s.

arizona memorial at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. eastern. a live call-in program at noon, 2:00, and 4:00 with world war ii historians. throughout the day, first-person accounts from servicemen and civilians. this week's national park service conference at pearl harbor, a tour of the visitors center, and archival footage of the attack and its aftermath, sunday on c-span3's american history tv. >> it is so convenient to listen to c-span anytime and anywhere with the free radio app. you get streaming audio of c- span radio and all three c-span networks 24/7 per you can listen to our interview programs. c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and a one-year scheme is restaurants -- on your screen is

representative tim walz, a democrat from minnesota, and the sponsor of the scott act, which is what? guest: is a bill on congressional trading. it says that congressional members should play by the same rules as others and the knowledge that we gain from the job that we have the privilege of doing should not influence our ability to pick stocks and is simply puts in some teeth to make sure it does that happen. it has been around since 2006. i took up in the first congress. there were seven of us on the bill for a long time. we've been reintroducing it and we reintroduced it in march to little fanfare. host: here is part of that news

story from "60 minutes." >> do you think it is all right for the speaker to accept a favorable stock? >> that is not the case. the fact is your basic premise is a false one. no use spending any more time. >> you participated in the ipo. there was a bill on favorable to the credit card companies. >> i'll put my record up against anyone's. host: that was former speaker nancy pelosi speaking with steve croft. this is no secret. they are frustrated and their

trust in congress is at an all- time low. my fear was that anything dick is the perception is always dangerous predict my fear is that anything that gives the perception is dangerous. they disagree with you politically. you have to believe they are looking out for your best interest without thinking about personal finance. this was never introduced to publicly embarrassed or to go after a witch hunt. the intention was to have another level of trust built up with the american people. the transparency was there. we felt there was a gap. i think the story shows there is the perception of that. host: what is the downside of this legislation? guest: i do not see a downside.

the constitution speech and debate clause. members of the additional duties like oversight and making sure they are listening to concern. the fear is that members would be less inclined to do that because they might be fearful they would pick up something. i think it is a specious argument at best. i do not think you should be trading at all. i do not see a downside if it restores trust in america. most americans, i did not direct my own stocks. i think that is -- the markets have to be fair. there are some insider baseball things that the security and exchange commission feels that if we make this too narrow, it

could be harder to enforce. host: there was a hearing yesterday on this issue. the phone numbers are on the screen if you want to talk with senator -- representative walz. spencer back as is the chair of the committee -- bachus was also featured in hear some from congressman bacchus. >> many members have been accused of some indefensible acts. i think it is created public perception as a result of that and the number-one misconception is that insider trader laws do not apply to members of congress.

i do believe that we can clarify that and i can clear to restore public trust. when an accusation is made, it has an effect, even if it is a false allegation. guest: i agree. i would like to applaud the chairman and nancy pelosi. they have expressed their support. the chairman to bring this to an open forum and to bring in the expert is a great step forward. i want to be very clear. i do not know whether this happens or not. the ability of four to happen is there. -- the ability of its to happen is there.

redundancy is far better than not doing anything. if it is some overkill and members of congress may be have to step back from now, that is part of a public service. host: have they co-sponsored your legislation? guest: i do not believe they have co-sponsored it yet. some of my colleagues brought suggestions to improve this bill. i do not claim this is perfect because i have not seen their suggestions yet. now this sounds like the senate and house on the 14th will be doing the big test -- the voting committee will over to the full senate and the full house. host: the bill prohibits members from buying or selling

securities or futures based on non-public information, disclosing information on pending prospective legislation for investment purposes. guest: this is a wonder million dollars a year industry -- this million. they try to glean information about what contract is awarded with the intent of going back and keeping -- tipping people as to what is happening. this is a practice that at best should be regulated. we regulate lobbyists who come here and they can range from

defense industries to juvenile diabetes supporters. you and the american public has the right to know who is talking to their member of congress. we ask these people to register. they can continue to do their business. it should be in the light of day. right now there is no requirement. on the just a cancerou markets that the american people believe somebody else is getting a deal that is better than the rest of us, it undermines trust. i think is an important part of this bill. we think it needs to be in there. host: tim walz is our guest.

he represents the cities of rochester in minnesota. first call comes from allentown, pennsylvania, richard. caller: i have a question. i suspect that newt gingrich -- i remember hearing that he god - made a lot of money from investments. of this type. would his -- now that he is out of congress, i suspect that what he made it came after he left congress. i am not sure. but i would ask, would his actions be violative of your new

law? be?t would the punishment th if it is just a censure, it would upset me. host: we got the point, richard. guest: i cannot speak to an individual whether it is mr. gingrich or nancy pelosi. our system should be allowed to do that to carry those things out. i think this crosses all political boundaries. if you have strong political beliefs, there is an assumption the other side is doing it. how'd you expect the american people to think we can solve the real problems of the day like unemployment or energy when they do not believe we are in it for the right reasons?

if the american people think they're making this because they are invested in this type of industry, it is dangerous. this should be criminal. martha stewart went to prison for two years. i know the security and exchange commission seems to think that the bill -- there is prohibitions against this. there are studies special members of congress outperform the stock market on a yearly basis year in and year out. no member of congress or staff has ever been prosecuted on this. the odds of that happening seem to be pretty astronomical. if we pass this, there will be teeth in a iit.

this will apply and there will be no protection. just because you're a member of congress you have an ability to not be held to that is ludicrous. host: carl from west virginia. caller: i think it is very sad when the congress has to legislate honesty. that should be prerequisite when you folks get there. i recall the dodd-frank bill. mr. dodd had a sweetheart deal and he was legislating rules for these mortgage companies and countrywide was given gamut sweetheart deal for practically no interest -- and countrywide was giving him a sweetheart deal. you folks will legislate this, but you will leave a loophole

that you can drive a truck through, i can guarantee it. guest: your skepticism is well placed. a former u.s. i would be skeptical, -- if i were you, i would be skeptical, too. i'm a school teacher and football coach. i tried to live my life right. my goal is to try and make legislation and improve the lives of americans. i do not want to leave a loophole in this. the previous caller pointed out concerns about mr. gingrich. both of you are valid in your concern. you need to have your faith restored that there is no loophole. it is sad that we have to legislate this but we need to start restoring trust.

if you say you disagree with my policy or not because i think you are scanning the system, -- scamming the system, that is healthy. you are right to be skeptical. we will close that thing down and to make sure this doesn't happen. so you can say, that is one thing fixed. there is a loss of trust in our institutions. we have a responsibility to restore that one person at a time. host: we have a tweet. guest: i don't think it is. this was brought up yesterday. want to pay the

fees for it blind trust if we do not need one. who is controlling the blind trust. i am willing to put it there. i think that we should put everything out there. my standard is that anything i learned in this job that i would in warrant keepiteaching job minnesota i consider to be insider knowledge. the greatest honor we have is our neighbors sending us to a representative democracy. i think it is a good idea. i think we go above and beyond and there might be some questions about how some of those are directed. i am willing and think that is a good suggestion. host: dan is an independent in

detroit. caller: do you guys think you are above the law? what about these free trade agreements and the missing money that comes up from the war? when are you guys going to start investigating that? guest: i don't think i'm above the law and i think i should be held to a higher standard. this is the bedrock of democracy and democracy is not a permanent state. it takes work and responsibility. my job is to try to restore your faith in that. i understand we have it long way to go. as far as perks, we argued there were be no trips, no food from lobbyists.

i thought that was great. get the money out of politics. i could not agree more. the biggest thing you have to have is believing that i am here trying to do the right thing for the country. you sign this bill, congressman so that you can get a deal here. that is appalling. before i came here, i was a teacher, working hard and try to save money for retirement and figure out how to give my young kids into college and playing by the rules. in america, there is the belief that certain people don't have to play by the rules. they benefit. i pledged that this is the first start.

your skepticism is well earned. we have proven there's a reason to be skeptical. call your member of congress today and tell them, why aren't you on this? call and tell them to add an amendment. and then see if we do it. if this is all for show because "60 minutes" did a story, then shame on us. if you think 9% approval rating for congress is low, see what the public says if this is not passed. all i have is my word. i'm trying my best. i am trying to make sure we can get down to the business of moving this business -- move in

this country forward. yeah, that is a fair assumption. it is a sad day when you have to legislate honor and morality. the vast majority of folks are hon. folks trying to do the right thing. but there have been loopholes and there have been perceptions. i think you're right. insider trading has all of ambiguity to reait. i was home at thanksgiving and we were discussing the farm bill. i do know that i'm not certain when it will get that thing done.

this is not classified information, but it could be construed -- what if you said that the farm bill was not going to pass and milk prices were going to drop and a relative traded on the stock. that could be considered insider trading. what if i just read a lot and i figured this out and that you guys would fail on the super committee and stocks were going to drop? i would come back to our folks online that wrote the question. we have to restore that faith. a friend of mine was asked about how we restore faith in the system, he pointed and said, we have to do one person at a time. he endorsed me but he did not endorse my political ideology but of the idea of trying to

clean up the system. i take responsibility for the parts of the system that i can make better. caller: hello, congressman. let me thank you for your point of view. i am a republican and from the other side of the political aisle. the point of view is spot on. there are certain issues that transcend partisanship. trust in congress right now is one of them. i was going to ask why we cannot to the blind trust approach. how is it that congress exempts itself from so many laws that we as citizens and business owners have to abide by? i think the obama care plan that

congress was going to be exempted from, i understand labor laws, eeoc laws, we have the insider-trading here. shouldn't it be the case when congress met are supposed to be the citizen representatives of our nation? guest: i agree. i take the position that this public trust has been given a responsibility by our neighbors. the thought of letting them down -- i am trying to do what is right. it should be higher. there are cases where we can clarify. there is a debate that i think is an honest one.

the constitution was written at a time -- the people would use things that were said to prosecute or to hold folks in parliament from doing their job. the speech and debate clause basically says that what we say on the house floor cannot be used against us to throw us out because you disagree with a political ideology. i think that sometimes people hide behind that a little bit. we can still keep an open and honest debate. if it were me, i think we should show all tax returns and show the connection to them. we do electronic disclosures. you can go online and go to certain sites and see this is what tim walz makes, this is

what he owns. i think we can strengthen that even more. we require people on wall street to report 40 hours on stock trades. i do the bare minimum in this bill of st. 90 days and have people saying, that is too short of time. i think this is restoring faith and asking folks and ceo's on wall street -- there is a common threat that there are some people game the system will folks like the caller saying i'm working my tail off and playing by the rules. i have to report and you guys don't have to. that is a terrible cancer on the democracy and we have to clean it up. host: we're talking with congressman tim walz from

minnesota. we have some tweets. guest: well put. host: this is for joy. host: if you would respond. guest: well, i appreciate the sentiment that we're trying to make a difference. a common thread is legislating morality and ethics. to me, it is just so disheartening that what has been given and sacrificed to allow us

to self govern ourselves is beyond measure. that is what we're trying to do -- towards a more perfect union. i feel a sense of responsibility. mark calls in and says, here are my ideas, and i'm listening and say, that is a good point. we're all products of our past. if mark would believe that the matter what he says, the system is already gamed, it is so frustrating. when i first got here, you could leave congress and go into lobbying and there were no restrictions. to get the bare minimum, we did two years. i think the idea that my

neighbors elect me to come there and do the job and now i can leave and have a golden parachute and all this. i'm in school teacher making $40,000 a year. that is what i should go back to. then we can get back -- we have important things to do. this is a distraction. if we do not fix this, how you believe that we're doing things in the best interests of the american public to do the job creation or foreign policy or regulation? because this group of people supports you -- that is horrible. i cannot imagine if the whole country had one opinion, it

would be a terrible way to do things. right now, nobody believes anybody else. host: joseph from south bend, indiana. caller: jgood morning. i want to thank representative walz on this legislation. i have been in the national guard for more than six years. earlier, you use language that he does not want to prohibit his colleagues on their rights. i know all little bit about giving up rights for service. could you use different language -- what is wrong with congress suspending their

rights to trade during the time of their service? i don't think anything is wrong with that. guest: thank you for your service. i know how viable you are to the country -- i know all the valuable you are to the country. a complaint i get is, that is easy for you to get. i'm middle class. i'm trying my best. i have some savings. i agree with joseph on this. i think you give up. the right of the public to see my records, that is their right.

i think to do that is part of showing that trust. we get back to politics that say i disagree with your position by believe that your honorable and try to do the right thing. i don't think there's anything wrong with that. this piece of legislation was the bare minimum. every piece of legislation has to have a starting point. we could only get up to nine co- sponsors. we are now up to 180. that means this will pass will we get more. host: last call for our guest from rapid city, linda. caller: good morning. i agree with you on your views.

here is the quandary we are in. no matter how much you try, you cannot regulate morals and values and integrity and common sense. i have come to believe that there are too many people in this country that no longer possess these qualities. thank you. guest: i could hear the frustration in your voice and there is no reason u.s. c-net, whether in business or in congress that people have let you down. i think we have to figure out is how we reward people in business and in the public sector and in congress. how do you reward people who are trying to do the right thing? disagree in a way that is honorable. the qualities that make this

country so special are still there, but the american people are losing faith in that. there are many things. reporting year marks online is something that we did -- reporting year maearmarks. i need people every day who should be serving in congress but because of the money, they are not. the alternative is simply not example. it is not just this country. we are the beacon for some much of the world. host: will end on this and comment. guest: i agree with him. this is a broader issue and goes back to a common thread -- let's

as a nation have the safeguards in there and let's debate our differences in a passionate, friendly manner with the idea that we all love the country and we all wanted to get better, but we have to believe there is trust at the heart of it. call your member. czech on line and see if they have been on this thing -- check online. that is a starrt. host: there is a big hearing tomorrow with jon corzine line. have you heard from your constituents? guest: absolutely. this is the same type of thing. mf global -- at enough glo

they hedged their bets on futures to make their business work, have the money it were supposed to be secure accounts that could not be touched. mf global is saying the money is gone or misplaced. former senator john karzai was asked to go to the senate and chose not to -- former senator jon corzine o. this is being felt and i have a lot of nervous constituents who have called in. that is why you have to have good, smart regulation to know that this money was there and it was safe. we will find out tomorrow or start to find out how money was taken and levers for risky bets.

there were betting on european currencies, of all things, with the farmers' money that was being used to make sure they could produce the corn and soybeans and hogs that this nation depends upon. host: congressman tim walz has been our guest. thank you for being on the "washington journal." guest: it has been a pleasure. host: senator jerry moran is next. after that, our weekly spotlight on magazines. we will be featuring an article in "bloomberg businessweek" about behavioral economics. >> german chancellor angela merkel and nicolas sarkozy continue working for changes to

your opinion treaties to tighten controls over spending and borrowing for all countries that use the euro. but britain is not on board. u.s. treasury secretary tim geithner speaking earlier to reporters says the continent's leaders must act quickly and convincingly to diffuse a debt crisis that is threatening the global economy. his visit comes on the eve of a summit of european leaders that takes place on friday. transunion says if the u.s. economy does not suffer more setbacks, the rate of mortgage holders behind on their mortgages should decline significantly by the end of next year. will likely take up to about 6%

for the first three months of 2012. the report was issued today. those of some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> to make as much more aware than i think we are of a potential sadness of collapse. what happens to the soviet union and to financial systems, what is currently happening to the european union is the kind of thing that can happen to when it complex system. it can suddenly malfunction. end, neal ferguson.a sunday night. also, a look at the japanese attack on pearl harbor and the

reaction by the american government, military, and public. saturday at 1:00 p.m. and again at 9:00 p.m. partisan politics are hurting the country. atriot acts."pictured ac book tv" every weekend. >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? that's our question in this year's studentcam competition, open to middle and high school students. make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the consititution that's important to you, and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of c- span programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there is $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: on your screen is senator jerry moran from kansas. he is here to talk about the payroll tax cuts. guest: i think the hard to say that republicans as a party or senate caucus have a position. there is a republican plan and the democratic plan, both defeated. i think there are -- there is disagreement as to the what the next step should bay and will wish to do with the payroll tax holiday. my best guess is that there would be a payroll tax holiday as part of a package, a bigger

broader package that will pass the house and senate and be signed by the president. the senate failed to pass anything last week. i don't think this issue is over. host: why are you calling it a holiday? guest: that is the way it has been a described. every employer and employee pays into the social security and medicare trust fund, an known as fica taxes. the holiday suggests that we're going to take an absence, a step away from taking -- from making those payments and give the taxpayer an opportunity from

paying those taxes. this holiday is currently in place and passed by congress about a year ago, and the current holiday expires at the end of the year. so is congress and the president going to renew the "holiday" for probably another year? host: you voted against the democratic plan and plan put forth by senator mcconnell. guest: i voted against the republican version. there is a concern that republicans would be voting to raise taxes if you did not conceive of the holiday. that has been the standard. it becomes a tax increase.

i can hear the campaign slogans or the sound bites about that. i did not vote for the plant a year ago -- the plan a year ago. this was the deal that was struck between republican leaders in the senate and president obama. president obama is now talking about eliminating the bush tax cuts. he was a part to extend the bush tax cuts and to extend the holiday. i voted against both with a couple basic things. the pay fors, i am generally for -- things like freezing congressional pay.

i will not say that would be a good idea. freezing the federal workforce. these are ideas the simpson- bowles commission came up with the use for deficit reduction. we're taking the suggestions of simpson-bowles, which has received a lot less service in support. many are saying we should have taken advantage of what simpson- bowles -- i believe president obama would have had a great opportunity to bring us together around the concept of simpson- bowles around the time it was introduced. it was never the vehicle in congress to reduce the deficit. we're taking the suggestions of simpson-bowles, not using it for deficit reduction, but providing one more "stimulus plan" with

the hope that it stimulates the economy. i voted against the proposal by president bush to give every american taxpayer a $600 check, which was considered the initial stimulus package to jump-start the economy. this is the same kind of circumstance. i represent very middle class, a hard-working folks. a few hundred dollars makes a difference in their ability to pay the bills are put food on the table. these are not easy things. i am a supporter of the solvency of the social security trust fund. taking money from the trust fund when we know it is on a path is another mistake.

i would think people who are strong supporters of social security would say that this is a bad idea to take money out of the trust fund. social security trust fund has been off-limits politically because it was self-funded. taxpayers were paying fica into the trust fund. politicians did not have much opportunity to mess with it. using the trust fund as a tool for other things should be reserved for the benefit of those who have earned social security and the money should be available for those when they retire. host: there is a countdown to the payroll tax conclusion. it was spoken about yesterday in

your home state of kansas. has the president play this well politically? guest: i am taking probably a difficult political position. most people would say that i appreciate that i am paying less taxes into the social security fund and i do not want those taxes to go back up. this is an american kind of issue. the politics is difficult and the president is perhaps on the political side that is the most appealing. many kansans worry about the future of our country's economy and the financial conditions of our nation and they believe we are broke and that we are spending money that we didn't have. it is the same thing with the $600 tax refund bill was passed by congress several years ago.

i was nervous about telling my constituents sthat there would not be getting the check. i explain myself and i get off the air and the news director at the review station says, i agree with what you said, but as mexicans was, by what might $600 -- but my next sentence was, "i want my $600." we are borrowing money to provide benefits -- so-called benefits today and in my -- the president is right in his effort to highlight the most important issue we face in the country which is the comet and job growth. -- which is the economy

and job growth. there are better ways to spend money that this particular plan. i don't think it is in the best interests of long term of the american people and the financial condition of their country. host: we have a tweet from ronald. guest: i would suggest that would not extend the payroll tax cut. if we're going to do something like this, i think we would be smarter to provide a onetime tax change that affects middle class americans, folks who earn a living every day at work as opposed to touch the social security trust fund. i would add a significant

component ot. my concern is where hastening the day when the social security trust fund is insolvent. we've taken last revenant into the trust fund than we are paying out in benefits. so already we are there. from thearate this social security trust fund and preserve social security for the benefit of americans today and in the future. if we provide a tax benefit, let's do it in a different way than the social security trust fund. we need a long-term tax policy. every business person or former or rancher is asking, what is government going to do -- every business person or farmer or rancher. we to say, this is the tax code

and we're not going to change it next year or next month and these gimmicks we keep coming up with to stimulate the economy, we need to set those aside and put in place a long term tax code so people can make decisions about the tax code and what it will be in five or 10 years from now. host: our guest is jerry moran. the shot clock is on the white house website. 24 days, 15 hours, nine minutes, and you can see the shot clock being counted down and that is at the white house website. ken is a democrat. caller: hi. guest: good morning. caller: i have been watching c- span quite a bit. a lot of the --

host: you have to turn down the volume on your tv. caller: ok. i wondered why politicians cannot offer to take pay cuts of themselves. that is only the fair thing to do. many americans that are suffering a today-- i am out of work. my jobs have been shipped out to taiwan. now i'm not working because of politics and the job market and the foreign trade agreements. guest: i would express my concern and care and sympathy for you and the circumstance you find yourself in. in your case, a payroll tax holiday does not benefit you because you are not earning

wages. we need something that increases the chance that you have an opportunity to be a tool and job.aker, to have have a we have to get back to the point in which we're talking about job creation, increasing the chances that americans can find employment and that americans can keep their jobs. this tax holiday this not address that issue, in my view. i never want to defend members of congress. members of congress should take the lead. this is perhaps insufficient to enter your question. there's been no cost of living increase for members of congress.

fore's been a freeze on pay maybe three years or so. host: st. louis, missouri, tj. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. i've been listening to c-span for years. you guys have been talking about freezing your wages and benefits while the rest of us out here are taking cuts in our wages and benefits. when are you people going to take cuts in your wages and benefits? what are we still paying china for this alleged debt relief and then we are also paying them for their country help? host: you have addressed the first question.

guest: we have learned many american people that there is some small amount of foreign aid going to china, which baffles mae. it will not continue. china is a significant competitor to the u.s. economy. they lend us lots of money. they should not be receiving financial assistance from us. we're broke. we have to reduce spending. i am a member of the senate appropriations committee. 30% of all we spend is appropriate to an annual appropriations process. 70% of all we spend our for social security and medicare and interest on the debt -- things that did not have immediate appropriations input every year.

we want to make sure that we hold line and cut back and that we have the larger picture of things that continue to burden our country's financial circumstances. -- ifwhen is the senate's and when will the senate be finished with his work for the year? guest: i am a new senator. hard for me to predict. the last two years, the senate has worked up to christmas eve. the hope or expectation is that we're done after next week. next week, the senate will recess for the holiday season and be back in january. that is determined by the issue that we're talking about today and a broader issue of funding the federal government into

2012, either by continuing resolution or by a so-called omnibus spending bill. those may be lumped together. there will have to be legislation passed before congress can recess. perhaps the new republicans in the house -- so the congress can recess for the holiday season, only to return in january. about aere's been talk continuing resolution that would fund commerce throughout the entire fiscal year of next year. guest: this is an embarrassment. we should pass a budget every year. it has been hundreds of days since the senate has passed a budget. every city and county in kansas

passed a budget every year and figures out what the parameters of spending are. we passed appropriation bills, usually 13 of them and filled in the blanks with in the budget. that has not happened. the options we have for funding the federal government's -- the fiscal year started on october 1, and we're still talking about what the appropriations bill should be. .e still don't have a budget three out of the 12th or 13 have been approved. the rest are pending. these words have become common. a continuing resolution.

this aspires december 16. -- this expires december 16. neither one are responsible government. this is what you can be critical of congress. we are dysfunctional. we should be able to route a consensus on how to operate the federal government from year to year and be able to pass the basic requirements of a budget. host: next call comes from a cincinnati, gary. caller: good morning. i was watching yesterday. the democratic gentleman yesterday spoke on the same subject and he said that obama, for the last tax break that we got, he had to pay for that one

so none of the money was changed and was going into social security. i wonder if he was lying about the last year or if he was misinformed. this mees to pay for in the next one -- does that mean he has to pay for it in the next year? i am a welder. i got laid off. i had to file for social security. we can fly little girls over.ing ovfrom haiti she can get skin grafts. regular citizens cannot get emergency -- i ask for emergency help for medicare. "guest: the point you make in

your first one, the previous guest, the guest of yesterday was not lying. the are pay-for in democrat and theublican versions of bill. the problem is in my view if we're going to have this, my complaint is what they are being used to pay for in the sense that in the republican version we are taking the reduced spending that was recommended in using it for this as compared to ever-reducing our country's debt and deficit. i would expect that there will futurefor in bills. the other concern is we are now

paying salsa's security money paid for that people work and go into the trust fund, we are replacing that with the will of congress to replace that money on an ongoing basis. i did not trust congress to protect the solvency of the social security trust fund. we're better off keeping social security -- there is no benefit to the middle class of having social security fail. you needed it and it was available in some circumstance, and we need to make sure funding of social security does not become a whim of congress, as compared to the ongoing everyday worker and the employer who contributes to the social

security trust fund. my view is the problem with what ever congress has stage, as a home -- as opposed to relying on the payments from the employers and workers to pay for social security now and in the future. host: senator moran is in his seventh term in the senate. he served for eight years in the kansas state senate as well, including senate majority leader. an e-mail for use senator -- -- for you, senator. guest: the concerns but that e- mail raises, the gentleman from colorado, very much reflects in part what i have been trying to say, and maybe he or she has said it better. that sets the stage for -- it

hastens the day it makes more political involvement and greater uncertainty for the solvency of this also security trust fund. -- of the social security trust fund. i grew up in a very middle-class at best circumstance. i understand what it is like to have parents in their nineties whistles as security a bigger part of how they afford to live. it seems there is a risk if we continue to tinker with the social security trust fund. one of the problems is our country would be so much better off and social security would have a much brighter future if previous congresses had not money to use for general government spending. host: next call comes from big

bear city, california. by is on the line. caller-- guy. caller: i am on disability. my check has been cut in half. it is now down to $61 per month. can you tell me how much tax did general electric plaay? guest: what i read in the press account is they paid no taxes, and we ought not in my view -- i would never defend that. we ought not have a tax code in which those in that circumstance, those companies in that circumstance paid no taxes. we all need skin in the game, and i believe this is the area in which republicans and democrats should come together. i am amazed we could not come up with 1.2 trillion dollars. i am discouraged and

disappointed. i am disappointed the select committee was unable to find 1.2 trillion dollars. that is a lot of money in the overall budget of the united states. it is a very modest amount. same way on this issue of taxes. i think this is an area in which republicans and democrats have the opportunity now to come together and get rid of loopholes, special treatment -- what we have to eliminate in my view, and this gets back to the middle class discussion, people that have special access to members of congress and get special benefits need to be eliminated from the tax code. host: next called for the senator comes from naples, florida. craig on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few important points

for the senator. thank you for coming on the show. as far as this reduction here, i do believe in this like corporate tax for the people that have made their gains on the privilege of selling their products to the united states public. this is a flat tax that would also help other companies come back to the united states to be more productive in the company's back inside the united states borders. the other thing is i hear a lot of people talking about they are hurting, but one of the callers mentioned, a congressional pay should be -- pay should be based solely on gross domestic product. some of these people in congress should probably do without pay. [inaudible] it does seem like there

is the same in regard to congressional pay. i would like to pick up on one of the comments that the calller from florida indicated. senator corner of virginia and i are soon to introduce legislation that we believe is important to jump-start the u.s. economy. if you want to help middle-class folks across the country, it is opportunity to find employment, to pursue their dream, and based upon research done by the kauffman foundation, which is a very serious academic think- tank that has practical applications, they have made recommendations on how we jump start the economy by creating a greater opportunity for men and women to start a business in this country, and that is where the job growth has started in

the past. if we're going to compete in the global economy, we need to have an entrepreneur or environment in which people that have ideas can't get the capital, know what the regulatory environment will become a can access employees, encourage people that have interest in entrepreneurialism abilities to come to the united states, people that have ph.d. s in science and mathematics can come to them knighted states and use their talents and skills here and create competition among states to create policies that encourage entrepreneurs or shhip. i was discouraged by our ability to reduce government spending. the other way to pay down the national debt is grow down the economy. job creation should still be front and center. it affects every american and has nothing to do with the debate about class's in this

country. everyone should have the opportunity to pursue the american dream. in the process, put people to work. host: you serve on the banking committee in congress. has legislation been introduced reject we had a congressman on earlier to talk about stock trading on congressional knowledge act. has anything been introduced in the senate, and would you support it? guest: it has. scott brown has taken the lead. the hearing has occurred. i am also on the homeland security and general government committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue appeared of last week as significant hearing that received national attention -- this is a topic that apparently anything that has to do with members of congress, but no

argument from me. this is part of the contract of america. this was the effort to require members of congress to comply with all of the rules and regulations that affect every other american around the country, and none of us -- i do not know how anyone defends insider-trading, taking information you have gleaned from your official duties and using that for your own financial advantage. my guess is this is already legal, but probably not prosecuted. host: gregory in denver. democrats, good morning. caller: it seems like the republicans are pushing for the rich and forgetting about the rest of the people. it is a disgrace to the country.

if we put republicans back in the white house, i believe america will fall. they created this mess. for them not to stand up and try to work with this president on nothing, it keeps saying no, no, but they want to give tax breaks to the rich -- i feel like their male prostitutes because they're out there working for people that do not care about them. i believe they will destroy america. host: we're going to have to leave it there. senator? guest: i would say i would welcome opportunity to have a working relationship with the president. if he was in cameras -- kansas, i welcome him to my state. it is always an honor to have any president visit cankansas.

it is saw happen often. i welcomed president obama to kansas yesterday. i welcome the opportunity to have a working relationship with this administration and sit down to solve differences. there are differing views on the best policies. the reality is those conversations have been taking place. i am new to the senate, but i ever read lots of history. it has not happened in my time as a senator. i would welcome opportunity to have those conversations to see if we can find that common ground. host: were you able to attend the president's speech in zero sodoosawatomie?

guest: the national media has had a hard time pronouncing the name. it is a community i know well. i have been too. it is the site of all -- of whatever state institutions, and a lot of caring people work there. host: it was described as a hardscrabble town. is that a fair assessment? guest: i do not know what hardscrabble is, but it fits my definition of that. it is a town of challenging economic times. a lot of state employees, and these are difficult times was the budget spirit of some difficult weather challenges. awatomie was flooded a few years ago. folks get up and go to work and try to make good things happen.

i was not with the president yesterday. one, because i was here in washington and we had votes on the senate floor. also, i was told this was a political event. kind of a difference -- i guess different because i am a republican. host: the unemployment rate is 6.7%. the national average is 8.6 percent signed. the last call for our senator jerry moran comes from dallas. caller: good morning. i agree with the senator about not extending the payroll tax, but what most americans do not know and you touched on it, is since the reagan years those in

congress have been writing trillions of dollars in the iou's and bonds, and now they say there is no money in the trust funds because they want to default on them. as far as insider trading, that is one of the reasons we do not trust congress. i have a question for you, senator. i see you are on the housing committee, and we have a real nice neighborhood. i am a senior citizen, and an investor bought the duplex where a store completely remodeled it. the government is paying $1,000 per month for this lady not to work. she has two teenage kids, and i guess she gets food stamps. you want to do was also security and medicare. section 8 is prevalent.

host: we are out of time. if there is anything, senator, that you want to comment on. to go only to say two things very briefly. one, i do not want to do so security -- social security and medicare. for the record, i am not interested in doing that. if you see or no circumstances in which the system is being abused, make certain that the people that administer the program know that. take an active role in making certain that knowledge is out there. but your congressman and senators know that spirit and -- let your congressmen and senators know that. host: senator, if simpson- bowels had come to the floor as an up or down vote, would you

have voted for it? guest: i had expected not -- express general support for the concepts. now,what ing what i do there was no increase in the leverage of the debt spending some of the select committee failed, president obama's does not balance and grows the deficit, and so all of the things that have happened since that point in time suggest of this is at the time, the concept you support bring as altogether over something that is not perfect. none of us would say that is exactly what we would do, but you cannot use that excuse for not doing something on the issue of what we live within our mean? the failing to do that and what that means for the everyday

americans on the ability to get a job and keep a job and our grandkids to pursue the american dream. host: have you endorsed the republican presidential? guest: i have not. that is not in my nature. host: terry moran, thank you for being on -- jerry moran, thank you. we agreed to turn to something called behavioral economics. this is of bloomberg business week feature written by greg but it. he will join us in a few minutes. i>> at this hour dados foreign ministers are holding a two-day session in brussels to in part review progress in afghanistan and plans for a missile defense system. the meetings this week are in

the preparation for a summit in chicago next spring. meanwhile, in afghanistan the president in remarks earlier said his government is launching an investigation into the bombings yesterday where at least 56 people, including an american citizen, were killed. the explosion happened as shiites were commemorating a major holy day. the president stays -- says the group behind the attack was based in pakistan. one day after the u.s. launched an english website that they refer to at the state department embassy,irtual iran of the sea residents say the site has been blocked by government. numerous web sites, including international media and social that working sites are available. in calls to officials for comment were not immediately returned.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> about an hour for your labor. no health care. that is the single most important element. no pollution controls and no retirement. you do not care about anything but making money. there will be a job sucking sound going south. >> ross perot spoke out about trade issues during the 1992 presidential debate. he made two attempts for the presidency. the first time getting over 19 million votes. although he lost, he has had a lasting influence on american politics. he is our final can get it is he spends 14-week series, "the contendors." go to c-span.org to view the other programs. >> december 7, 1941, at date

which will live in infamy. take up this sunday, 424 hours, american history tv looks at the on american military forces at pearl harbor, including the seven did -- 70th anniversary commemorative ceremony at 5:00 and 8:00 eastern. and live a program collins at noon and 4:00. in december 1941 author craig shirley, and first-person accounts from servicemen and civilians. this week's national park service account from pearl harbor. sunday on c-span3 american history tv. host: every wednesday in the last hour we feature a recent i magazine article -- magazine

article. today we will feature one from "bloomberg businessweek" it is written by drake bennett . he joins us from our new york studio. let's start with what your article is about, and that is behavioral economics. guest: behavioral economics is the study in which people did not act the way traditional economic says they should. there are a lot of macro and micro models. economics assume people are calculating utility operating machines. we're passionate and do not get suckered by a used car sales promotion. we value present aid in future gains the same way. and what behavioral economics does is it grew out of psychology. all of these people say how do

people really act, and maybe we should look at the ways in which we do not act the way the traditional economic models suggest we should. so it is this hybrid between the psychology of the one hand and economic on the other. you write behaviorist rely on-cognitive shortcuts to make decisions, which often leave them to choices they come to regret. we say too little and spent too much. we stick with the status quo, even when it costs us money. what are those instincts, biases, and cognitive shortcuts we use? for example, the godfathers are to israeli psychologist.

they looked at some of the shortcut. one of the ones they looked at a lot was the tendency to value compared it changes over actual sums of money. for example, if you talk to people about making or losing $20, it will matter a lot more to them if they have a smaller amount to begin with. the idea if you would walk an extra 10 miles to save $10 on of $20 a toaster, people would do that but not walk 10 miles to save an extra $10 on about $1,000 tv or something like that. host: what is the public policy aspect of behavioral economics? what is the example you used in your article, and what is the public policy example of behavioral economics that has

been practiced? >guest: the economist created a series of rather ingenious studies to look at these quirks in the way we think about money and decisions and things like that. one of my favorite studies, and one i mentioned in my piece is one where they ask people -- they surveyed a bunch of people and they ask them, given the situation, and the situation point to the theater, and right as you get to the ticket window you realize you have lost your ticket. do you did pay another $10 for a new ticket? half the would do that. -- half said they would do that.

economically from up here cost of the analysis, that does not make much sense. $10 is $10. it is set -- and expected utility. to explain this kind of weird gap, they talk about this idea. there was another economist that came up with this idea of mentor economy, and the idea that we have this account that we put everything in subconsciously or not. the most straightforward idea is the mason jar with their money in the fund money. we really keep those together. the idea is when you lose the ticket, the way you think about that consciously or not is you will have to pay $20 out of the entertainment account. if you just lost the $10, it has

not been assigned to an account at your did you are more likely to say it is another $10 out of my general store of money. this idea made its way into the obama stimulus. this is the tax credit that went to the working family, and it was $400 or $800. it was the way it was paid out that was interesting and followed the behavioral tidbits. the idea is rather than send people a check, which is how this thing usually happens, this was done in of very -- basically an of noticeable way. -- unnoticeable way. what ended up happening is people barely noticed it. this was by design. the idea was if you do not

notice a big chunk of money going into your bank account, you will spend it. this seems counterintuitive, but the idea is if you see the big chunk of money, you will put it day account. if you notice you are making a little bit more money than usual, it is more likely to go into your spending account. host: drake bennett, was the obama administration purposely playing behavioral economics with the tax bill, and was it successful? guest: it is hard to say. they did not announce this is a behavioral economics intervention. there are full people who have done research in this field and have written about this. one of the more high-profile regulator is a lawyer in a legal scholar who wrote the best-

selling book called "nudge." this advocates all the way behavioral economics should be used by all sorts of people from schools to businesses to people trying to lose weight to the government. there are other people, too. it was widely seen as a behavioral tests to economic liberalis behavior. the first they have looked at this and seen it does not work, and back it backfires.

what you want is you want people to spend the money. you want people to buy tvs, cars and that sort of thing. the study, the forthcoming study found it seems to have made people spend less than if they just sent the check out like a traditional stimulus payment. host: drake bennett is our guest. the numbers are on your screen -- here is the article in this week's "bloomberg businessweek" opening remarks, nudge not. drake bennett now a writer for bloomberg. there was a tweet that came up that i wanted to get to, and all of a sudden twitter is over

capacity. we will come back to that and begin by taking this conversation from mike. caller: good morning. this is almost laughable. i know you have a college degree, but i must bring your attention to something. we had a civil war over economic policy. for god's sake, but that is the biggest -- if you can understand what caused the civil war, what is economic policy? the north did not believe in slavery, and neither do we as a country. for you guys to come in -- the civil war is a prime example of that. kudos to all your research. you have a good day. host: we should tell you we have

up the date live above the phone numbers but says can economic policy drive consumer behavior? host: give it your research on behavioral economics, is that yes, no, or maybe? guest: what is interesting about this study is it was the first attempt to look systematically at these ideas of behavioral economics. what it suggested was it was complicated. at first blush it looks like it does not seem to work. the fact that it got them to spend less is in and of itself is a bit of a validation of behavioral economic principles. if you were looking at this as

an neo-classical economy, it would not matter how you gave people this money. you could give it to them in a check, you could give them an enormous bag full of cash. no matter how you gave it to them, it would not matter. the fact that had an effect, it suggests economists are onto something. they may have the details of particular things a bit off. i should say they are of surprisingly, behavioral economists have issues with the of this paper. and as people to describe their spending and talk about whether something was going to change with how they spend the money. one of the things that behavioral economic costs believe more than anything is people are poor judges -- they do not have a good sense of how much money they spend and why they spend the amount of money they spend. there is certainly plenty of

debate that will continue to play out around these issues. host: one of the policy discussions going on right now is the extension of the payroll tax cut. but it is not extended, if you make 35,000, you will see an increase of $700. 50,000 will see an increase of $1,000. $1,800 for 90,000. 110,000 and up will see an increase of 2341 over the next year if the payroll tax cut is not extended. the you know enough -- do you know enough, if that much is taken out of some one checked over a year, will that reduce my economic activity?

guest: behavioral economics would suggest you do not want to take people out of -- take money out of people's paychecks. one of the interesting questions -- behavioral economics looks more merrily at these questions like doesn't matter how you give people the money? i think there is a pretty wide consensus that it is helpful to give people money when you're trying to kickstart the economy. there is a fair amount of consensus that you want to give people money in a not temper way. you want them to think the money -- the business is like a temporary tweet. then they are more likely to save it. i do think that does grow out of the neoclassical idea that people are coldly dispassionate calculators and if they get the check they will think i have the

money now, but in the future i will not have the money coming in, so maybe i should save it away. one of the ramifications of the kind of research we have been talking about is that people may not actually be so dispassionate and rational about this, and these temporary stimulus payments may do something. it is on something behavioral, as have looked at a lot, but the fine -- but the kind of thing people may be interested in. host: martin on the republican line. thank you for holding. caller: good morning. i am wondering if language and the use of language has much to do with your spouse and of your theories in the article. for example, in this morning's presentation you have chosen to use the expression of sorts of.

the very vague expressions such basically" an" and " water down your theory. guest: couple of things. i think the calller may be picking up on certain verbal tics i use, and the other thing is the theory's in the article is not mine. i am writing about a debate between one school of economics and another. i certainly hope the calller did not get the impression i was screaming this as my original idea. they certainly are not. i am not really tried to take a side in this debate. i think it is something that will play out for a long time.

an interesting example of where the research field meets the demands of policy-making. the question is does it work or have to be modified in certain ways. the piece was not a manifesto for or is against behavioral economics. host: joe tweets in - - guest: that was certainly one of the implications of the title. this idea that people are excited about, that seemed like it would speed the spread of of the stimulus money into the economy seems to have done opposite. that implication was certainly not accidental. host: san francisco. democrats line, please go ahead. >caller: what the american people need to know is

republicans keep talking about cutting the deficit, but they want to do it by laying off government workers. now, that is economic suicide, because you really cannot improve the economy until you create demands for the services. in order to create the demand, workers have to make enough money to pay for their overpriced houses and the bills they have incurred on their credit cards and have enough money to go out and spend on u.s.-made goods preferably in order for this to work. this is where the dilemma is. i understand people getting money and not spending it, because when they see so many layoffs and cuts coming down the pike, they will not spend -- they will save their money for fear they might lose their house.

i think the jobs bill is a perfect way to go, because we are indeed need infrastructure. it will collapse and cause more harm than if we spend the money now or work of disasters like you orleans. >> any comment? guest: i would say i think it is important to emphasize that the tax credit that i looked at in this story is everyone agrees it is only part of a larger strategy. what the calller is talking about is certainly one of the things that people would make a difference? >> do retailers use behavioral economics and their pricing or putting things on sale? guest: i think you could say that. they do not necessarily do it

because they read the peer review literature at papers like this. these are things that advertisers, marketers, people who figure out the layout of department stores have done for years. one of the interesting findings -- phibro the congress are trying to figure out why these things work. one thing that behavioral economists talk about is we want to change people's eating habits. maybe we should put a healthy food at eye level of the junk food down at the floor. this does not seem like a rocket scientist, but it is the sort of thing that people are purely rational tabulators of calories and obesity vs health and longevity. i think a lot of this is common

knowledge to marketers and advertisers. host: a tweet for you ask you about the economic sphere. does that lead to more savings? guest: yes, i think that was one of the things that the set of research dealt with, but i think certainly what you have seen in the climate of a lot of economic uncertainty people are saving rather than spending. they are paying down debt. it makes sense for an individual household, the paradox discovered was the problem is that is not great for the economy as a whole. host: next call comes from michigan. they are the republican line. good morning. caller: in your economic theories, have you ever taken

into consideration that reproductive habits of a country? may lead this nation here had approximately 70 million-80 million abortions throughout the course of roe vs. wade. what this country would have looked like have those 70 million or 80 million aborted children had grown up in the tax payers in this country, contributing to all of the social safety nets and blue cross blue shield was directly affected by the constituency? host: we're glad to leave dave's comments to stand. that is not what the article was about. we're for to move on to brooklyn, new york. -- going to move on to brooklyn, new york. caller: i think the proponents are thinking too hard, and they

are too smart. i think one of the reasons this to me was package that passed is not working well is because it is not focused on creating real demand capacity, which are jobs. he and funding unemployment insurance. host: mr. bad deennett. guest: i am not sure i heard the question of, but it is of a smallversial that's the tax withholding based stimulus payment will only be part of a larger stimulus strategy. it is part of a larger mission of trying to create real demand,

but certainly only part of it. we're talking about a few hundred dollars per year. host: when you look at the stimulus that was pumped into the economy in late 2008 and 2009, is that based on behavioral economic theory, and was it successful? guest: one thing that this paper that i wrote about this look at was comparing the 2008-2009 stimulus payments. the first payment went out as a check. the 20091 went out as the steady dribble of money. the researchers in this particular study found that it seems like the 2008 stimulus payment was not based on the economy at all. it is the way the stimulus

payments have gone out for a long time. that one seems to have done better. the idea of the stimulus, the idea of tried to get money to households in a time of recession or time of anemic growth is not behavioral economics. that goes back to keynesian. that is a older idea. that is one where i think there is more consensus that this is something you want to do, maybe there is debate about how to do it or useful to do it for a little while rather than permanently. where did behavioral economics comes in is the question of how you get the money to people it doesn't matter. it is a question that the traditional economics have left open. host: next call for drake bennett of whether or not economic policy could drive consumer behavior.

this comes from jacksonville, north carolina. caller: i appreciate the article. i understand what you wrote about. the big picture here is, and the question i have for you is, how does it make you feel to know every behavior that you have of this plan it is being studied by someone and using information stooge -- to steer you like a rabid rat to do this, that, or the other, and no matter what you. did you tell us how it makes you feel, and how it affects you and your family. guest: it is a really

interesting question, and one of the founding fathers of this field has written about this a little bit. it is aey say it is hama little unsettling that the idea that government bureaucrats or academic researchers are looking at why we do what we do, and perhaps they carried out ways to push us to do things we would not otherwise do. their argument is this is already happening all over the place. advertisers, marketers, political campaigners -- all of this stuff. they are basically doing this research, too. what behavioral economists argue they are doing is trying to actually make this more transparent and help us understand the mechanisms that are perhaps controlling our behavior. it is important to understanding

that things work at the margins. you could be nudged to do not courageous thing. that is taking it a bit far. for me personally i think this is really interesting. it is interesting to catch myself being tempted to buy something or sort of attempted to take a certain kind of gamble and realize that does not make sense. maybe it is because of the way it is presented to me. personally that is what drives my interest in this topic, a way to understand my own behavior, and perhaps to control it a little bit better. host: as the government use behavioral economics before it tried to set politics? --use behavioral economics

before in trying to set politics? guest: not really. it is dry and technical, but they changed the lot around retirement plans. one of the most successful interventions that behavioral economics has resulted in is something -- it deals with the default on retirement plans. the finding, and it probably makes sense to anyone who has ever tried to save money, but a lot of people did not put money into their 401k. one way to make them do that is to make the default option that you to put money into it. right now in most plans if you do nothing, you did not save any money. if you quit that and made it so that if you do not do anything, you're automatically saving money. simply by flipping it, you radically increase the percentage of people who save. also, for most people, but the

rate at which they say. it seems like a great thing. in 2006 congress and trying that into law and made it easier for companies to switch the defaults on retirement plans to help people save more. that is one example. the stimulus was so far the most ambitious policy initiative that used these ideas. host: a few minutes left with our guest before the house comes into session. tracie a republican in wyoming. caller: good morning. i am the mother of four boys, in light of this took the time to write down his thoughts about what the government thought of him. money, like the banking commercials. goes on to explain that he is 10-years-old, and he could buy a lot with $45,000.

what he estimated his fair share of the national debt is. he goes on to write, he list the things he could use that money for. states that $45,000 to buy a lot of stuff, more than my dad are mean-spirited government should not try to buy everything. it is my job at the people stopped to buy the things we need. i do not what the government to think for me. they do not know if this -- i am a little brother with my big brothers tell me what to do because they're not always responsible for their old things. it is discouraging to know that my 10-year-old boy is worried theut his fair share of fivf national debt, and he is concerned about what our congress is up to. host: i think we got the point. our response from our guest, drake bennett. guest: well, not sure what the

question was, but i think the debate over how to give people -- how to pay out stimulus money to households is only part of a larger debate about whether we should have the stimulus plans at all. i think that is where things are right now in washington. but i was interested in looking if yous other question of o think it is important to do this, does it matter how you do it? host: maverick tweets in -- is there a correlation between amounts? guest: i am not an economist. there are certainly a lot of

dichotomous, especially liberal economist who think it should have been much bigger and should have lasted much longer. there are eponymous of a more conservative nature that think that would not have been worse, the increase in borrowing that it would require from the fabric of our red. your view were probably realizes there is a huge debate about this. -- viewer probably realizes there is a huge debate about this. host: next call from san antonio, texas. you are on with drake bennett from "bloomberg businessweek". caller: hello? i would like to mention how -- i would like to see both sides. i did not like to see one side and put my mind set on one side. on one side i could see how

this scientists study could really work for humanity and be beneficial. in that we will be able to have [inaudible] [unintelligible] this science is very new, but with the understanding of the human brain and behavior we will be able to push science further. for now i think we should study what we do not know about humans. i believe economics is like the ecosystem. for example, liberals believe that most of them -- that the animal should be free. yet they want regulations on humans. i believe if we were to be set free, the economy will be boosted by thousands and millions and billions and that could grow out of this.

this potential growth of human understanding first. then with our economy boosted some we have more scientific research to put in in order to make this consumer behavior system work. host: any comments for him? guest: i think the first thing you said is certainly something that economists and other social scientists who are not totally on board with behavioral economics make. that is you have this fascinating set of observations about human behavior about the way we do not conform to traditional behavior, but that is all it is right now. there is no overarching theory. this is still a pretty young field, so it may be premature to be deciding what the stimulus

plan looks on based on these ideas. there are certainly people that make the argument that we are sort of getting a little bit ahead of ourselves by putting these things in practice that such a large scale so soon. host: again, just to remind people, what we're talking about is a synopsis of drake bennett's article in "bloomberg businessweek. it is really good politics to spend more than $100 billion of something few people notice. politics believed partially out of money had been a dispirited .

is that a fair synopsis of your article? guest: yes, certainly. again, it is this interesting, intriguing quite popular field of study. there have been best sellers. people are really excited about it, but i found it intriguing that the first time someone has tried to look at this, the effects of this what you try to build a policy around it, the finding is that it not only does not seem to a work, but it seems to a backfired. host: any economic policies in the pipeline the you see that are based on behavioral economics as well? guest: well, one other one that

is being talked about and experimented with a small field is not in the u.s., but in england under david can read it was a big fan of this kind of stuff. -- under david cameron, who is a big fan of this kind of stuff. one thing they are trying there is to get people to pay back taxes to try to peer pressure that it to doing it. the back story there is one of the findings of this field of research is if you want to get people to do something, whether it is turned down the thermostat or recycled or not litter or whatever, the most effective way to present that to someone is not to describe the cost of this behavior or to say -- to appeal to the rational mind, but the most effective light is to simply