army officials on thursday said they will cut 8700 civilian positions next year at 70 locations across 37 states. the jobs will be eliminated by

september 20, 2012, to cope with the budget cuts. we'll talk more about that as we get into this segment of the program. but we want to get your input on the discussion. and here are the numbers if you want to be involved with the conversation. we have a special number for the first 45 minutes of the program. for army civilians. if you would like to get in touch with us via e-mail the ad dress is journal at c-span.org. or you can follow us on twitter.

this is more at the item that we got at national journal.com under the headline army to slash thousands of civilian jobs in 2012. they write 90% of the cuts will come from the installation management command.

more from the statement that was released by the army earlier this week. the department of army announced december 8th, our

first call regarding the 8700 civilian job cuts expected in 2012 comes from madison, wisconsin on our line for democrats. caller: i'm calling because i think that defense cuts are a good thing for economy. i've been researching this for 25 years and it does seem to be a very good thing. the cuts in the 90's over the

80's produced very strong economy for america and the defense buildup the over the last decade has led to a very disastrous situation. the buildup over the last decade because of its unequal allocation around the country caused the boom, the artificial bubble in the real estate market, which eventually popped when the surge happened in iraq. which drained resources from america and then plunged us into our current economic dilemma. host: according to this -- we've got a chart here supplied to us by the census bureau, and according to the census bureau, the 2010 reports in wisconsin there are a total of 2810 total civilian military jobs.

of those most are army jobs. if a significant number of those jobs go away do you think it's going to have an effect on the economy in wisconsin? caller: well it might hurt in camp mccoy in some of the areas, but overall it will be very good for wisconsin because generally when you cut military resources it hurts -- or when you build them up it drains the manufacturing economy. and when you cut them down it goes into the manufacturing economy. and these highly talented people can resuscitate our manufacturing economy. and we're a high manufacturing state in wisconsin. so the net result would be very positive for wisconsin i think. host: moving on to georgia. shelly on our line for drarkts. caller: maybe i got the wrong

number because i was just finished watching the registration and i was just trying to call them and tell them mitt romney is speaking but he ran the whole show. he did not let them ask him any questions. i guess i got the wrong number. host: what do you think about the proposed cuts to the civilian army personnel? caller: i think this is the thing but i'm not really involved with that because i don't understand that stuff. but that's what i was calling for. host: let's move on to aaron in north carolina on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm trying to understand why they're trying to cut civilian jobs in government spending cuts when it should be things like fuel and other things.

host: where is man at theo, north carolina? caller: on the coast. host: according to this chart that we're referring to from the census bureau there are 20,000 as of 2009 plus jobs military jobs, civilian jobs in north carolina. ose those, almost 9,000 in the army. if a significant number of those go away, how will it affect the economy in north carolina do you think? caller: i think it will hurt it a lot more because a lot more civilians are out of jobs. and when people are out of jobs they're not spending money and buying things back into the economy. host: what's the nearest military base? caller: i would probably say in norfolk, virginia. host: let's move on to gainesville, plea. clarence, go ahead.

caller: i was making a comment with regards to army civilian cuts. there are very serious cuts going on at all times to federal agencies and republicans seem not to mind. however, when the cuts come on the show then they seem to be all up in arms. host: we're going to get back to our phone calls in just a few seconds. we're going to talk a little bit more about these cuts by the numbers. we've got a chart from the department of defense that shows a little bit more about what's going to be happening by the numbers, the planned reduction by approximately 8700 positions will take place by september 30, 2012.

we also have an item from the new york daily news we get from new york daily news.com. caller: good morning. thank you very much for taking my call. host: there's several military bases in the san antonio area? are caller: yes. there's fort sam, randolph,

yes. we are very military friendly city. as far as cutting the jobs i think it is ridiculous. i'm a republican obviously and it's -- i'll just say on behalf of the republican party it's just an embarrassment because 8700 civilian jobs cuts is not going to help because more people are out of work. and i just think if we're going to talk about compromise, if we are truly going to talk about compromise, the republicans want to cut 2.9 trillion off of the entitlement programs, wafer, food stamps, i wouldn't have a problem like that. but at the same time if you want to do that you need to let the democrats cut from the wealthiest in america, the top 1%. if you want to cut from poor folks, fine. but cut from the rich folks as well. are a compromise. that's why i think it is an

embarrassment as far as the republican party is concerned. because if you want to cut off the entitlement programs, then let the democrats cut 2 to 3% off the wealthiest. right now i'm watching the republicans and what they're doing right now. it's an embarrassment. really, i'm waiting on 2016. i really am. i think a lot of people are. right now, all they're doing, they're just making it easier for obama to get in. >> how many on a daily basis, how many folks do you come in contact with in the san antonio area that have civilian military jobs or civilian army jobs specifically? >> well, i used to not as much because i used to be on the base a lot but i don't have my military benefits any more. i'm only 22 and i got them from my parents. so i don't see it as much. but you can tell. we have a lot of military that

are off base in the uniforms. i'm sure -- one of my friends has a world government job on rand awful. so just to cut back -- rand of. it's once again saddling. bottom line is with this country now, if you're not rich, if you're not a millionaire or billionaire you're screwed. >> illinois, steve on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. when i took economics in college, they stressed that the economy is based upon circulation of money. i think the government should hire as many people as possible because any money that's given as a salary gets recirculated into our economy over and over again. and i can't understand the philosophy of thinking that cutting jobs anywhere, whether

it's civil or government, can help our economy. it's really a dilemma for me. host: according to our census numbers, steve, there are 15,000 plus jobs civilian personnel military jobs in illinois. of that, about 9,000 of them are army civilians employees. is this going to affect folks that you know? caller: i would say not folks that i know directly. but if i were the president or if i were in charge, i would hire as many civilian people as possible. i would create directly create civilian jobs in the military, construction jobs, teacher jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. because that money stays in america and gets recirculated to all kinds of other people. >> we've got an e-mail from steve who is a democrat and he writes that, back to the phones

in west virginia on our line for independents. you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. glad you took my call. i think that they should cut a whole lot more civilian jobs in the army and let the soldiers do it because there's so much waste and fraud in the contractors that's working for the army. they need to be cut out. host: you've got some experience in the military? caller: i sure do. i'm a veteran. host: what kind of work did you do? caller: i was artillery. host: if you were still in the military, they were talking about cutting the jobs, what kind of a job if you were going from artillery and said we're going to put you into a job

currently he would by a civilian, what kind of a job would you be qualified to do? caller: i was supposed to be a demolitionist but the training we got wouldn't amount to nothing. host: not a whole lot of call for demolition in the civilian world? caller: that's for sure. host: what are you doing now? caller: i'm retired. host: josh, from cambridge, new york. caller: this seems like another stab at the american people. i mean, if they're going to have all these troops -- we're borrowing, what is it like $3 billion a day from china just to keep funding the wars that we're doing and obama is getting a peace prize even though he expanded the war on terror and he brought 3 million more troops into the war in afghanistan and all this. and we've got all these troops all over the world and we

should be defending our borders and not trying to police the world and we should be following what ron paul says each and every day. we need to get him in the white house because he is a genius. host: what does ron paul say about cutting defense spending? caller: let's bring our troops home and let's defend our borders. and it's not going to cost us all this money shooting bullets and dropping bombs and policing the world and having bases all over the world telling everybody what to do. let's mind our business. and yes life isn't fair and sometimes you get dealt a raw hand. and if you come to us and ask us for our help, it might be one thing. for us to take it upon ourselves through the u.n. and nato to do whatever we want to whoever we want to and spend it on the backs of the american people, we didn't sign up for this and we're not asking america to police the world.

and we've got thinging falling apart in our own country that we need to be taking care of. so it's like, that's horrible what's going on over there, what about what's going on over here? are host: as we mentioned, if you want to follow us on twitter where we get this comment from joe our next call comes from

south carolina. pat on our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the army's plan to cut 8700 jobs by 2012? caller: any job that is cust is bad. but this is another way of this republican holding the americans hostage because of the simple fact that they want that pipeline through and if they can't have that pipeline they would rather see america go down. and i say all of us must have got some money coming out of it. there is no way in the world i would jeopardize the whole country for a few dollars.

host: mark on our line for republicans in maryland. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: a lot of people have a my conception about any type of federal governmental job, 8700 jobs is just a drop in the bucket. the military doesn't produce anything. they draw from the economy. there's social security, medicare and military that they're crushing us at this point. we cannot sustain this. our taxes will not cover it any more. host: this from "washington post".com. they write, back to the phones.

maryland. caller: even the thought of cutting the military at a time

like this is ludicrous. we need to bump up the military. for every troop we have in iraq deployed, we need 12 support troops. and part of them are civilians. and they're needed. host: all right. we're going to move on to new jersey. you're a civilian working for the army right now? caller: i retired from working for the military 28 years working with them as a civilian. host: what kind of work were you doing? caller: i was a contracting officer. my comment is that instead of getting rid of all the civilian employees within the states, that we should start looking at closing down some unnecessary bases in other countries. we support a tremendous amount

of civilian jobs that are foreign nationals. we're employing and supporting the economies of a lot of other countries and employing their people. it would be much better to keep the people that we have working in the united states supporting our military and pull in our net a little bit, so to speak. i don't disagree with some of the things that ron paul says in that we have a tremendous presence around the world. other bases, other countries. and the amount of money that we pay the people in other countries working in civilian jobs at our bases is tremendous. host: in your experience as a contractor, did you do any work overseas, at any of the overseas bases? and if so which one of the bases would you close down?

caller: well, i worked in germany and in panama. and the bases we had in panama we already cut back. we had one tremendous presence in panama 14 millry basis at one time. and i would mention that a military base today is a lot different than the military base that we had in the past. when we move into a country, we set up a city there. the people have a px, a commissary on every base. it's not the way most people would think of when they say that we have troops in another country. in the past i'm sure when we set up shop, people shopped on the economy in those countries. instead, we set up one heck of a network in setting up our own commissary and px, the grocery

stores. host: thanks for your call. we're going to look at some other items in the news as we continue our discussion about the army's plan to cut civilian jobs in 2012. this is from the "wall street journal" this morning.

back to the phones. caller: good morning. i worked for the army for over 32 years as a payroll chief for civilians. and i can tell you that i agree first of all, that we ought to cut back a lot of those foreign bases and bring civilians home so that we don't do so much in pcs cost and maintaining schools and things like that. but we also should look at the pentagon and the d.c. area. we spend an enormous amount of money on multiple levels of unnecessary management. and also, we're bringing military home from iraq and

afghanistan. let's bring those civilian contractors home and civilian military home that we are paying an enormous amount of money to build infrastructure in iraq and afghanistan. and keep our americans working instead of building infrastructure for countries that are just destroying it as soon as it's built. let's keep americans working. host: charles in kentucky. you're on the "washington journal." caller: i'm a first-time caller. i'm retired army and also retired federal civil service. and i have worked for government contractors. i think we need to do some cuts. and i come under the training doctrines command. i was a training instructor. host: where did you do your training? caller: at fort nox, kentucky. host: what kind of training did you do?

guest: training soldiers how to drive a tranchinge using a computer simulator. host: and you were doing this as a civilian? caller: yes. host: could this job have been done by one of your military counterparts? guest: we had military training also. but the only time they did training is if the civilians were off being a class on equal opportunity or something, o if they were off on vacation or something then the military would go on the trainer. but the civilians, there were several times where we had go a month and a half at a time to where we didn't even have students to train. we would just come in and sit around all day. host: charles in kentucky. the front page of the houston chronical this morning has a picture of two young ladies in santa clause hats, destiny

amber of houston and her daughter wait for their flight friday during the american airlines snowball express event at bush intercontinental airport. they are among nine military families to join nearly 1700 children and spouses of fallen military soldiers from across the country on an all-expense paid trip to dallas, forth forthworth, texas. >> mark, you're on the "washington journal." caller: thank you very much. first time caller. i'm a first time listener as well. but with that said, i'm 13 months without a job. my former job was with the federal government. and i got laid off from that and i am 100% for cutting more jobs. i think all of these should be cut. anything that needs to be looked at you need to go to the constitution.

and in this particular one, section, article 1 section 8 power of congress is to raise and support armies but no appropriation of that use shall be longer than two years. we do not need to have a long term standing military. we need to cut massively. our government needs to be about one tenth the size it is and cut out everything else. host: mark, there's a fairly significant military presence in the state of alaska. if there were to be a cut of 10% of those civilian military jobs, how much of an effect would that have on the alaskan economy? caller: it would have a huge effect. but that's one of the parts of having to cut back on everything with less regulation, with less government than we'll be able to sustain and provide jobs to other areas. host: randy is an army civilian

working in illinois calling us this morning on the "washington journal." go ahead. caller: good morning. the reason i'm calling is on the announced cuts, all they're talking about is man power cuts. they're not talking about what jobs or functions that they're cutting. all they're going to do is cut a civilian employee and go out and hiring a contractor. that's not saving one red penny. that's the problem we're encountering at the installations they're not telling us what functions are going to be cut. generally speaking, the army has been telling some of our people in some of these installations is that no matter what happens, i'm going to get the job done. and if that means going out and hiring a contractor they will. host: are you still employed as an army civilian? caller: i am at arkansas. host: what do you do there?

caller: i'm a machinist by trade. host: give me an example of what a machinist does. caller: we manufacture artillery and how itsers. host: have you been told if your job is on the line? caller: my job isn't but we have other jobs being eliminated. they eliminated firefighters, police officers, security guards, what blocker embracers, basically people that load stuff on flat cars and on tractor trailers. host: have those people been replaced by contractors or what's the plans to replace them if at all? caller: not yet. but what will happen is when they will go into a failure mode, the commanding officers or the civilian execs will go out and hire somebody to do that. host: we're going to move on to phil on our line from port orange, florida.

caller: good morning. i appreciate what the earlier caller said. that the military doesn't produce anything. it's just a drain on the economy. and it's a massive amount. the wars themselves need to be questioned i believe. and in addition to this huge military presence all over the world. i think on 28 february 1991, president bush senior called a cease fire to the war in iraq and any president can do that right now. they have the unique ability to do that and authority. i think we need to -- why not? why not can't obama just order a cease fire? host: we'll leave it there. we've got this tweet.

back to the phones. james on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for c-span. i think we need to go back through history to find out what the intention for having a military and i pretty much know that george washington in his fair well speech to congress said that the two greatest threats to democracy are standing armies and foreign entangelements. and from what i understand they really wanted just a militia that could be called up at a moment's notice not having a large standing military. the reason being if you have a large standing army you will always be engaged in war. there will always be those who will be anxious to engage the army in things other than its

purpose, which is according to the constitution to provide for the common defense. and i'm a firm believer that our military budget is just way overblown and that we do engage in things around the world that we don't need to be involved in. from what i understand i think we pay more for defense than all the other countries on the planet combined. and i live just outside a military base and i am from a military family. but the military, to agree, doesn't really say produce anything. it does produce our safety but it doesn't really produce a product. host: james, we're going to leave it there. we want to take a break from our discussion to let our viewers and listeners know that american history television has a special look at the december 7, 1941 japanese attack on the military forces at pearl harbor

the day franklin roosevelt said would live in infamy on this special look we'll hear first-person accounts from servicemen and civilians take a tour and see ark ivel footage of the attack and its aftermath. >> yesterday, december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. the united states of america was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval forces of the empire of japan. the united states was at peace with that nation and at the solicitation of japan was still in conversation with its

government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the pacific. indeed, one hour after japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the american island of oh ah huh, the japanese ambassador to the united states and his colleagues delivered to our secretary of state a formal reply to a recent american message. japan has therefore undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the pacific area. >> we will bring you highlights throughout the day from a conference convened this week by the national park service at pearl harbor and you can see this at 8:00 and 5:00 eastern

time. watch the 70th anverriss ceremony overlooking the uss memorial. for more information you can go to our website and check it out on american history tv. next up, union city, tennessee, mary on our line for republicans. what do you think about the army's plan to cut 8700 civilian jobs? caller: i think it's a travesty. host: why is that? caller:ive seen both sides of the spectrum. i've seen it at tinker air force base, i've seen it in georgia at fort mcpherson and i have seen it at the v.a. hospitals which i worked at which we were very shorthanded. what we need to cut is foreign aid to all of our enemies and maintain readiness as long as there is communism. as a country we need to maintain our ready force.

and you just can't up and train a force with today's technology overnight. host: north carolina, jonathan on our line for independents. go ahead. caller: i was previously in the navy for four years and i served also as an army contractor for almost 1 year. and from my experience i think it is a great idea for these cuts because the work that i performed outside of the government was probably equivalent to twice as much as what i did in the government. one of the reasons i left working with the government is due to just the waste. it was justing to me. so from my opinion i think it's great from what i've seen. host: thank you for making the call. we're going to move on to del ray beach, florida. wendy, another army civilian calling in. go ahead. caller: i was a former army civilian. i worked at the pentagon for

two years as a food service technician before i was laid off when the cafeterias were given over to a private contractor. what people don't seem to realize is that many of these jobs are not military jobs. they're not what you would think of as an army job. i was a food service technician. there are many people who are secretaries, custodians. host: this morning from google.com and the associated press we've got this story regarding texas governor rick perry who on friday met with members of the des moines register editorial board. texas governor perry said friday there are eight supreme court justices not nine and couldn't remember justice sotamayer's name.

let's take a look at some of what rick perry had to say. >> i guess that's what several of us around the state what we're hearing. explain that more to us. >> i do. when you see is appointment of two -- from my perspective -- inarguably activist judges, whether it was not -- >> sotomayor. >> and kagen are both activist judges. i mean, i would suggest to you that that is an example of my

concern about i believe the supreme court should not be making legislative decisions and telling americans how to live to tell a local school district that you cannot have a prayer and a time of prayer in that school i think is offensive to most americans. i trust the people of the states to make those decisions. i trust those independent school districts to make those decisions better than eight unelected and frankly unaccountable junls. host: and you can see more of that on our website. hilton head, south carolina, henry on our line for democrats. you're on the "washington journal." caller: thank you so much. it's such an honor to be on here. my question is that we have spendings of 800,000 per inmate

in guantanamo. where we have in the states 30 to 50,000 for state and federal inmates. i don't get it. and i just don't get it. i had the chance to see mr. knut gingrich here in hilton head just recently and i got no response. thank you so much for having me on. thanks for what you guys do. host: oklahoma, anita on our line for republicans. go ahead, please. turn down your television. and you won't get the feedback. caller: ok. host: what do you think about the army's plan to cut 8700 civilian jobs next year? caller: i don't have anything against the military because i'm proud of the military. my sons are both veterans. but the only thing is i'm a civilian, i'm not military. if they cut the civilian jobs

what are the civilians supposed to do about their jobs? because they're going to be unemployed and unemployment is going to stop the 31s if congress doesn't act. that's not right because that's leaving civilians drawing unemployment that may not be there. sure, give the veterans a job. they deserve that more than anybody. but what about the civilians? host: what is it that your sons do? your sons are working in the military. what do they do? caller: they're both out of the military now. one works at tinker in the department of defense which his job will probably be secure. and my other son, him and his wife are both disabled veterans. and if they find him a job that's fipe. but what about the civilians? host: all right. thanks for your call. coming up after this break, we're going to be discussing the impact of the european debt

plan and what impact it will have on the u.s. but first, we want to show you some footage of general martin dempsey, the army chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and was speaking at a seminar in washington on friday morning when he was pressed by a colleague from the water post into demonstrating his reported ability to sing. a rendition of the irish holiday song christmas in kill any. dempsey carries a reputation as a crooner before he moved to the pentagon in 2003 as the commander of the army's first armored he sponsored a karaoke night where he took the mike to serenade the troops with frank sin at ra's new york new york. this is general dempsey singing. >> this guy over here has hid

red light. then i can't either. sorry. i'm not showing up on you tube fwen. i've been there too much. all right. real quickly. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause]

>> pedro is an economics correspondent with reuters and is here to talk to us about friday's eu u.s. in brussels as the european leaders try to deal with their financial crisis. we want to talk with pedro about how it's going to impact the united states. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. host: the headline in this morning's "wall street journal" questions plagued eu pact leaders to repair flaws in currency but bold stroke's missing. tell us, how did europe find itself in this position to begin with? guest: that's a very complex question but i think we can start with a few basics. i think the first structural issue that europe has is that it has a monetary union that

lacks the fiscal authority to back it. so that model worked when times were good. but when times were bad, the system got shaken up. so that's a basic structural problem of the european -- the monetary unit itself. but there's also other factors. for instance, the u.s. economic crisis had ripple effects in europe. european banks had large holdings of subprime securities. so that led to the needs of bailouts of banking sectors in specific european countries that got certain countries like spain and ireland into trouble. so you have those factors. and then you have the combination of governments who were basically allowed to borrow at very cheap rates. you had a convergence of i want rest rates so that greece could borrow at close to the same rates at germany. and you had governments with incentives to rack up the debt because they would never have to deal with the consequences of that debt.

and you also have banks on the other side with an incentive to help these countries issue the debt because they made a lot of fees in the jurnt writing process and they made a lot of money trading the securities as well. host: so there was, as is described in this morning's "washington post," a landmark summit of 27 nation european union which ended on friday with both a pledge and a wedge. a pledge among nations to work toward a new treaty binding them more closely in a pact that would save the euro and a wedge between the continent and britain which opted to sit it out. first, tell us why did they choose now to come together for this european summit? and -- the european union summit and what did they actually accomplish there? guest: it seems that we have a weekly gathering of leaders that is supposed to be accomplish some massive thing

and we have this looming deadline. and then they seem to come together but not much comes out of it. i spoke to one italian profess who are described it as a papele gathering where you're waiting to see the white smoke come out of the top. this week they seem to be kind of detached from reality in this particular instance because they seem to be grappling with a very long term issue, which is bringing the fiscal aspect of the union closer together. but they're not at all dealing with the immediate emergency situation which is this snowballing panic that we're seeing in the financial markets. and that requires much tougher and more decisive action including by the european central bank. and we're not getting ink lings as the moment that this is going to happen. and so this particular agreement is unlikely to plakeyate markets and to have a lasting effect on actually putting a floor under this.

host: tell us about the specifics, some of the highlights of this particular deal. and why it is that british prime minister david cameron has not agreed to sign on to this deal. guest: i guess britain has always been the odd man out in european union discussions. basically what they've done is kick starlted the process for fiscal integration. that sets tighter limits. it's kind of a reinvention of the original concept, which basically put countries on an equal footing by giving them similar rules to follow so they won't get into fiscal trouble down the line. the problem is that some of these roles actually become very constricting for countries that need to grow at a time when they are already in this cycle of high debt levels and low growth. so if the pact doesn't also come with stimulative measures that allow these countries like italy and greece to kick start

growth in the short run, then you're going to get this cycle of austerity and further economic downturn and higher indebtness and interest rates. host: in the "washington post" article, so david cameron didn't want to sign on because he didn't feel this pact was germ main to ining land, that they're not facing the same situation as say italy or greece? guest: that's right. because i think england actually has the privilege in a way of not being involved in the situation so closely because it has the ability to print its own money.

so it does not have the detachment between fiscal and monetary policy that we were discussing earlier. so in a sense while it does have a similar debt profile to some of the southern european countries that are actually in trouble right now, it has the ability to manage that. and there's no doubt in its ability to repay its debts because it manages its own currency. >> and the lead story in the "new york times." it's been written and seems like germany is sort of leading the charge on trying to get this pact together and trying to find a situation that will be able to assist greece and italy. correct? guest: that's right. but the problem with the german vision -- and that's an important thing -- is it's an

austerity driven vision. and it's a vision that basically germany doesn't -- germany sees itself as the country in the best fiscal position with the croint with the deepest pockets and therefore the kind of leading force of europe. and in that role it weants to make sure that if it brings other countries under its wings so to speak it will not have to fund sectors in italy and greece but the problem with that calculus is that the immediate issue at hand is that we are on the verge of a bampinging crisis. and the reason that germany can't simply kick the can down the road is that the german banks have a huge stake in the european banking system. and if the german banks were to run into trouble, germany's fiscal position would deteriorate very quickly and might start looking like a southern european country as well. so a vision for europe that is strictly focused on spending

cuts is likely to lead to a cycle of continued slumples and market turbulence. host: so now with this understanding of what's been going on over in europe and the announcement that they made on friday, how does this affect the united states? >> it affects us in many ways. in a way it probably is already affecting us. simply on a sentiment level, turning on the television and getting a sense that we might be entering another crisis as we often do when we turn on the tv these days, that kind of dampance both consumers in terms of their spending plans, that dampance business sentiment and perhaps hiring plans for companies. and so there's already kind of a doom and gloom effect that hangs over us when this happens. but we can have a much more real impact and that could be coming very soon if a floor is not put under this situation rather quickly. the worst worry of course is

what people call lehman type scenarios where you get a kind of run on the investment banking world that leads to a credit crunch and that credit crunch would quickly transfer to the u.s. because of the interconnectedness of the banks and that could lead to tighter credit here. that could lead to banks running into trouble here as well. because while u.s. banks don't have an enormous exposure to southern european debt, they do have large exposures to european debt. so in a sense they're all together in this. and so there's definitely a huge risk of a spillover here and potentially if europe goes into a deep recession potentially a hit to our economy as well. host: we're talking with pedro da costa of reuters here to talk to us about the euro debt plan. if you want to get involved, give us a call.

you can also send us a message via e-mail and twitter. our first call comes from buffalo, new york. debbie on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i would like to ask how much are we actually on the hook for, for the loans? and is that also being dealt with? caller: how much are we, the united states? is that right? caller: correct. guest: how much is the united states on the hook for these loans. and what's the long-term effect or what's the long term responsibility that we have? well, i think if what you mean is this latest round of lending that's happened by central banks, last week global central

banks lowered the rate at which major institutions could borrow dollar funds in order to kind of put liquidity into the market. so if that's what the caller means, we're on the hook for -- we're not on the hook really because we really just exchange euros for dollars. so it doesn't have a massive impact on our fiscal position but in terms of our gross exposure to the debt, i think it is not a question of how much u.s. banks own of the european debt per se. but it's their exposure to financial institutions that really matters. and then that particular arena we're very highly exposed. host: so the united states is not loaning the money directly to the countries but loaning the money to the countries through the banks? caller: well, there's different levels. i'm saying that our banks have relationships with their banks.

therefore, if their banks run into trouble our banks might have trouble as well. our bank is not currently lending in any major way to the european union except for its loans to the imf. and there has been talks that the imf should play a larger role and that countries like not only the united states but also the large countries like china and brazil should chip in to create a larger fund so that the imf can become the lender of last resort to replace the ecb. but there's a lot of suspicion about these plans in the united states. . .

caller: who is going to bail us out, nobody can tell us about? it seems like it will have a snowball effect. it sounds like socialism to me. guest: i can understand the caller's fears about money printing. i think we have to separate the situations. one of the interesting ways to think about the european crisis is not so much a debt crisis, but more as a political crisis. the debt levels in greece, it

sounds like they have enormous levels of debt, and they do relative to the economic output they produce, but as a percentage of eurozone debt, we're talking about 3% of gdp. it is a small amount. it is a question of fiscal transfer. germany is in a better position because it took the advantage of the monetary union system. is it willing to transfer funds to a country in a bad position? which states like new york and california fund services in poor states? that happens in the fiscal union. host: speaking of new york, we have evelyn on our line for democrats.

caller: hello, mr. pedro da costa. do you think germany should go in the way of institutional changes? as far as greece and italy? guest: i think they are pushing for them that is where the detachment is. germany is trying to extract as many concessions as possible so the basis for the fiscal union is a sound one, and one can relate with that sentiment. right now, we are in the middle of a panic. i heard a brief economist say the middle of a financial panic is no time to build sound institutions. so, his argument, and the

argument of the economists but i speak with his you have to put a floor under the situation, -- that i speak with as you have to put a floor under the situation, under the borrowing costs, because they could sustain debts if they could pay them at rates that are not sky high. once the market makes that commitment, put a floor under the system, and that is when you get into the institution building. host: in "the washington post" earlier this week --

host: tell us more about this. the u.s. is trying to play the role of mediator because it has a high state, but we lost moral high ground because we had a financial crisis here. secretary timothy geithner has said it tough time trying to dish out a device, and they kind of point maquette us and say you guys are not doing so great either. -- kind of a point back at us,

and say you guys are not doing so great either. i do not think it is a problem for the u.s. to solve. i think it needs to be dealt with internally in europe. of course, you would expect a u.s. presence, but that is different than a commitment of funds. i do not think there would be political appetite for a u.s. bailout of europe at this point in time. host: talking about the europeans dealing with this, german chancellor angela merkel talked earlier this week about the eu credibility, and how it has been restored, and on the united kingdom's decision to veto this treaty. >> our credibility has been restored day, after day, as a set of the european council meeting.

we have succeeded in laying the foundations for greater confidence in the euro, our common currency. when i say us, this includes the 17 member states of the eurozone, but i wish to emphasize that we have also received support from countries that are not yet members of the euro area, which have not yet adopted the eurocurrency, and which after consulting parliaments have decided to support us and take the necessary measures. we will see what measures they will take. one country alone has distanced itself, and that is the united kingdom. we had a meeting with david cameron, and the united kingdom, like us, depends on a stable euro because the euro

impacts the whole of the european world in the same boat. host: pedro da costa, go ahead. guest: i think angela merkel can talk about how they have restored credibility, but that is a judgment other people will make, not she. the markets did not seem to have confidence. the public dispensing to have confidence. if you look to the individual -- if the public does not seem to have confidence. if you look at individual europeans, they're looking at high unemployment, so i do not think confidence has been restored, unfortunately. host: back to the phones and our conversation with pedro da costa of reuters. we are talking about the euro debt plan and its impact on the united states. our next call comes from bedford, virginia, jeff, on our

line for independents. caller: we were warned about this global economy, that it would add to ruin. when are we going to learn about the consequences of this? if we keep bailing people out and not letting them collapse, it keeps piling on the problem. how're we want to let something collapse and get on a level playing field with everyone else without ruining the world economy, because that is what is leading to appeared -- leading to. the bible warned about the global economy 4000 years ago. guest: it is a good point. the bailout culture has become a central problem to this process.

there is a comparison to the u.s. crisis. the growth of the financial sector has been so rapid that leads -- rapid. that leads to political decisions that are not ideal. the distinction the caller made between not bailing people out and letting people fell one they deserve to, but also not letting the system collapse, it is very important distinction. i think the u.s. case teaches us lessons, and we have failed because watch it has gone back to business as usual. it is one thing to bail out its financial system on the verge of collapse when its collapse would lead to harms of millions of people and job losses, but sarah, but then, once to rescue -- etc., but then, when you rest to the system, you need to fix all the things senator wrong.

if you do not do that, you get more of the same. there is definitely something to the notion that because we did not fix the global banking system in the aftermath of the last credit crisis, we have allowed it to build up in other areas, and it is a reflection of the same process. host: in "the wall street journal" again this morning -- the ecb, the european central bank responded to a sharp rise in the italian yields by buying the country's bonds.

host: tell us more about the ecb president and why this move to shore up the italian financial system. guest: the ecb is in a tough spot because they're supposed to be a political and not involved in dealing with issues. and as i mentioned, this is a political crisis fundamentally. at the same time, a central bank is a lender of last resort, and in a panic a central bank is supposed to lend freely, but out of penalty. that is the dictum given to central banks. this half-hearted measure exacerbates uncertainty. he is publicly saying they're not going to buy italian bonds, but in the background there are buying just enough to get to the next day. this crisis started getting

going in late-2009, early-2010, and we have had these piecemeal solutions. every time you have a hard- -- half-hearted solution, the cost of solving the problem rises because the interest costs rise, spain pays more for its bonds, italy pays more, so it becomes more difficult for them to service debt. they have to cut more spending, which hurts their economy and pushes tax revenues down. it is really an issue of -- if you look back at how we ended the crisis, march, 2009, the bottom of our stock market, and what happened? the said stress tested the banks and said everything was ok. what investors and bill was that the u.s. government was no longer going to allow a major

financial restitution to go down. that is what we did. host: we have been talking about financial interest against political interests. so, does this move by the ecb signal that the financial folks in europe are not necessarily behind or supporting what the political folks put forth in the treaty that they put on friday? guest: they definitely are not, because investors are bond holders and their main interest is getting paid. if they see a snowballing process that raises interest costs, making countries on able to pay them back, they will not be happy, essentially. mario draghi is in a tough position for various reasons. number one, he is senator and himself. -- and an italian himself. he used to be finance minister of italy. he could be seen as favoring his

own country by bailing it out. the other role he had in the past, actually, he has a relationship with both sides because he spent two years as a managing director at goldman sachs. so, you could look at that both ways. it could be an asset as he showed -- knows the industry, critics have argued he is too close to the issue to be impartial. host: as someone who is have experience with goldman sachs, can he say the situation presented itself in the united states, this is how we tried to fix it, this is what worked, and this is what did not work? guest: no, because by the time hewlett -- we were fixing the problem, he was back in italy.

host: he could talk about how the problem came about, but not how it got fixed. guest: exactly. host: back to the phones, and our discussion with pedro da costa of reuters, jim, ga., on our line for republicans. caller: europe's problems have much less to do with the 2008 banking crisis than they do to the free trade in agreement with china in the 1990's. you can blame wall street and the banking crisis, but what really goes a heart of the declining revenues is a free trade status to china, and all the jobs and have left. italy has a tough time continuing the exportation of leather goods because you have slave labor and polluting companies in china the do not have to worry about anything, and you have a lot of lost jobs

revenue. i disagree this as a lot to do with banking and real estate. the democrats love to keep a festering this because they can blame it all on republicans, but there are no republicans in europe. there are a bunch of socialists that promised benefits to people in greece that they cannot afford because of changed economic momentum and it all stems back to this free trade. the western world will look back at this, and not be able to believe we just gave away our economy. the united states, the united kingdom, and europe were wealthy before the trade agreement with china by trading back-and-forth with good wages and good standards of living. guest: i did not mean to ignore the trade component at all. i actually agree with him. i think the process the u.s. has

faced in the opening up to global competition and competing against countries with very cheap labor such as china has harmed the positions of the developed world. that is without a doubt. there is also one other interesting dynamic, the dynamic of europe, something people do not talk about. when of the things that happens in the monetary union is that germany does labor reforms in the 1990's that allowed it to hold down wages a little bit. it became extremely competitive, some would argue at the expense of some of the other southern european countries. so, there was no internal trade dynamic that led to a -- there was also an internal trade dynamic that led to a deficit. i was not tried to blame the entire affair on wall street. the media dynamic of the panic

is similar, but the roots are long-standing. host: listed another call from david in englewood, new jersey on our line for independences. caller: my comment is in germany and britain are doing what is in their best interest. germany has a stellar credit rating, and all of these other countries do not. angela merkel does not want germany's credit rating to be dragged down by all these other countries that have spent until they're blue in the face. the same thing with the uk. they wanted to impose -- well, they did impose a tax on financial transactions, and the u.k.'s prime minister realized this would help destroy the

financial status of the city of london, so he was not willing to let his country go down again with europe, which continues to spend and tax. all of these countries have been raising their vat taxes over the last couple of years. right now, you're's economy is 50% government -- europe's economy is 50% government. guest: the size of government -- there are structural problems with some of the countries in europe. i guess the caller's main point is that germany does not want to bail out the other countries. i guess the way i would look at it is this -- they are really all in the same boat. they are in a good fiscal position because their economy has benefited from the economic of arrangement that is the

monetary union, but there banks have actually played a large role in the lending and issuance of this debt. so, while their immediate fiscal position looks good, if they allow the situation to deteriorate, their credit rating might also come into play. the rating agencies have already put that warning out. the current path does not appear sustainable. host: harold, on our line for republicans from orlando, florida. caller: i have an unconventional question. in america, we are giving all this money to big corporations and they're losing the money, they do not know where it is set. my question is, why would the government not give each american $1 million, and with that money, you would pay off your bills, the housing industry

would recover, the you would not have any more social security. you'll be responsible for your own retirement tariffs there would be no more federal government as far as collecting income tax, because i think we should have a 10% flat tax on everything you buy on top of the text ripieno to pay for everything. see host: a little -- tax and now to pay for everything. host: a little bit off the subject. guest: kind of a grand plan, but the idea that stimulus is better when directed at people rather than firms is something i would concur with. host: our next call comes from atlanta, georgia. john, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i have a few questions. when we started the

conversation you talked about the eu meeting to focus on the future and not the issues today. the way i understood the meeting was to create a greater fiscal union to allow the ecb to act. if you could explain that aspect for me -- i think they're trying to create something more like we have in the u.s. what are they trying to do there, and how was our system better than that? i read a book by michael lowest. they talk about taxes. -- michael lewis. they talk about taxes. greece has tax-loss, but they're not -- taxes, but they're not

using taxes. how do these packages help that? we have been hearing about piggs for a while. what will happen? host: pedro da costa? guest: the first part, i guess the idea it is they do not want a central bank that is printing euros without a fiscal authority to back it. so, the more confidence you have that in the future you will have a reasonable fiscal pact were budgets will be brought in to control, the more confident markets can feel that any short- term money-printing or bond- buying by the european central bank will not be inflationary in the future. so, i guess that is the concern.

so, the model is a united states of europe. if that is what they're trying to work towards. of course, they are far away from that at this point. there needs to be further agreement on how free the money will flow between the countries. as far as greece, that is a very good point. that kind of gets missed. if people talk about the narrative that has emerged from europe the keys are proper good, big-government states that are failing because they spend too much money, and that is true in some cases. on the other side is you have corrupt, inefficient tax systems, where people are not paying their fair share. instead is happening at the same time, you're cutting people's pensions, but not raising taxes at the top, then you are not really creating a sound foundation for prosperity.

host: john, from sarasota, florida, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i want to go back to talk about the bond purchase that happened a few weeks ago. germany is a power house in europe, and they were buying up the high-risk italian bond. i do not agree with the reason given. i think those bond holders know that when this collapse comes and these countries default, they will be forced to give up their sovereignty. if this goes back to an article that was jim "the guardian" or the "daily mail" saying germany was able to accomplish economically what it was not able to do in world war ii. there was this plan -- at think we will start to see interesting things ahead.

host: pedro da costa? guest: i think that is right. we have and efforts to accommodate different countries and cultures that have different modes of thinking of of how to organize themselves. i think there is definitely more conflict ahead. host: i'm sorry. are you done? daytona beach, florida. panos. caller: i happened to be great, mr. pedro da costa. can i make a couple of comments. guest: i would love to hear from you. caller: i have lived in this country for about 45 years and i follow this situation very closely.

i watched television almost every day. greece has had a right wing government for many years before popgun trail's father took over the government and that was -- george papandreou's father took over the government and that the celebrated. his son, unfortunately, proved to be nothing but a political prostitute, like many other leaders in this world. they sell out to the banks and to the big money. greece is not necessarily responsible for what happened. the greek leaders are very corrupted, but germany has contributed because they allowed greece to borrow all the money so they can go back and by the

german products to keep the economy going. host: we are running out of time, so i need for you to make your point or ask your question. caller: the great people are so proud that it is impossible for them to except -- to take everything they do, it is impossible for them to except the situation, and i do not think the european community considers the public that cannot withstand these austerities. we have more suicide in greece than ever before. host: panos, we will leave it there. pedro da costa? guest: those are some interesting points. i would agree with the caller that germany has a big stake.

when we talk about bond vigilantes', we think about keeping sovereign entities he in check by preventing them from getting into a top spot, but in effect the markets were enablers of the indebtedness in this case. so, that is an interesting process to watch. i do i do agree that austerity measures have to happen and they loss of sovereignty has to happen simultaneously and there has to be some democratic accountability and used in the process. you're bringing together nations in the same way we brought together different states that existed as different entities at the inception of our union, it is definitely a torturous process. >> our last call comes from new york. staff on our line from democrats. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. my question and i guess my statement for the listeners is that we in the united states need to be wary of what the federal reserve and our government is doing. rather than throwing good money after bad and playing this game and getting driven further into the abyss, which should be doing what iceland is doing -- going after the bankers, the clerks that caused this problem. host: thanks. guest: i think going after the people that caused the crisis is one element and one very important element of resolving it and it goes back to what i said earlier about the distinction between bailing out a system in bailing out average people when the economy is about to collapse or the financial system is about to collapse, but at the same time, holding people accountable rather than going back to business as usual when the bailout is over. let's just say that bailouts should not come without strings

attached and that changes have to take place once you have funded a rescue of that sort. host: thank you very much for being on the "washington journal" this morning. in 45 minutes, a discussion on tax credits for energy efficiency, but coming up after this break, a look at debt collection. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> december 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. >> the sunday, for 24 hours, american history tv looks at the japanese attack on american

military forces at pearl harbor, including the 70th anniversary commemorative ceremony. live call-in programs 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 about pearl harbor, a tour of the visitor center, and archival footage of the attack and its aftermath, sunday on c-span3's american history tv. >> throughout my military career, i prided myself on not being afraid to tell people what i thought. the worst thing you can do is to let a senior leader had done the wrong road is in the back of your mind your think we ought to take another look at it. people's lives could be at stake. or we have an obligation and a

duty to be good stewards of the resources that the public and trust us with -- that the public and trust us with. sometimes you have to be courageous in a meeting. >> major-general marsha anderson on her career as the highest a shrinking female in the united states army, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and -- "ic on c-span's q 9 q&a." >> which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you? make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that is 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. for all the details, go to studentcam.org.

>> "washington journal" continues. >> thomas paul is the assistant director of financial practices and is here to talk to us about that collection practices. debt collectors -- what they can and cannot do when calling those who are behind in their financial obligations. the ftc says in 2010, they received over 140,000 consumer complaints about that collectors. welcome to the program. what seems to be driving up the number of complaints against debt collectors? is it that the debt collectors are more aggressive in what they are doing for that more people are, in fact, in that? >> -- in debt? guest: i think it is a combination of both. we know they are making more collection attempts as the economy has remained in crisis,

and many of the debt collectors who are trying to collect from folks who are very cash strapped have taken more aggressive steps, and that has resulted in the increase in consumer complaints that we have received at the federal trade commission. >> how bad does a debt collector's behavior acted before the ftc to get involved? >> we make choices as to how many cases we are able to bring, given our resources. we usually look at cases where the harm is the most egregious, looking at bringing cases where we want to develop a legal principle, or things like that. one thing i would note is that the ftc has the ability to enforce the fair debt collection practices act, and most of our cases are brought under that statute, but that statute also permits private citizens to bring their own legal actions and in fact, last year, approximately 11,000 of those actions were filed by individual

consumers. host: tell us a little bit more about the fair debt collection practices act, particularly how it protects consumers from being abused by debt collectors. >> sure. their debt collection practices act is a fairly comprehensive framework for how debt collectors should deal with consumers. at the core of it are the principles that that collectors should not engage in deceptive, unfair, or abusive tactics in their interactions with consumers to collect on debt. those practices that are prohibited range vary widely. we see collectors making false claims to consumers, making threats to consumers, calling with excess of frequency, wrong times of the day. there is a wide variety of practices that debt collectors cannot engage in, which fall

under the statutes of what is unfair, deceptive, or abusive. it depends on each individual case, but nevertheless, the their debt collection practices act provides a general framework that allows us at the ftc to go after that collectors who violate those provisions. host: we are talking with thomas pahl. if you want to get involved in our conversation, the numbers -- 202-737-00024 republicans here democrats, 737-0001. will also be taking questions or comments via e-mail or twitter. our first call comes from tampa, florida. michael on our line for democrats. caller: good morning, gentlemen. the, i wanted to make is basically that i think today, we

are seeing an overall violation of trust. people are not paying their bills. people are walking away from debt, and i think they are encouraged to walk away from that, and i think it is going to create a problem going forward. guest: one thing we do have to recognize is that that collection does play an important role in the credit system. if people are going to lend money, they need to have some assurance that they will get repaid. if they are not prepared, that collection is a means through which creditors are able to get a return on their investment. that leads to greater availability of credit and lower cost of credit. so there is nothing inherently wrong about that collection, per se, especially because of the valuable role it provides in the consumer credit system. that said, we are focused more on the manner in which debt collectors interact with consumers. what we are trying to do is to

use our law enforcement role to make sure that those debt collectors who go outside the bounds of proper behavior -- that we can take action and rein them in. i believe the call it -- i agree with the caller that debt collection is important, but there is also a very important policy concern that we are trying to address, which is that many debt collectors in collecting from consumers engage in unfair, deceptive, or abusive conduct that we think is important to stop. host: georgetown, kentucky, randy on our line for republicans. caller: would it help any if you did away with credit-card so much in this country and started using cash? also, a point on the previous show that you had from the previous person -- is that the

dumbest thing you have ever heard, someone calling in and wanting 10 million -- caller: -- host: want to leave it there. can collectors take debt from your account? >> a couple of commons. a lot of consumer debt in the united states is credit card debt. a lot of the problems we see with that collectors seeking to recover is recovering on credit- card debt, either on behalf of the bank that issued the credit card or also, quite frequently, on behalf of someone who bought the debt from one of those banks and is trying to collect on it in its own right. credit card debt is a major component of the consumer credit system in the united states and a lot of the debt collection activities that we see a rise from efforts to recover on it. certainly, consumers, when they pay a debt to a debt collector,

some of the news credit cards to do that. so credit cards are in the process both as a means through which debt is created but also sometimes how consumers on the back end and paying off -- end up paying off debt collectors. host: can debt collectors without your permission pay off your debt by going into your bank account or paying off one of your credit cards? >> no. -- guest: know, they can contact you and ask you to pay your debt. if you do not pay your debt, essentially, the real options of the collector are to report that unpaid debt to your credit reporting agency or to file an action in court to seek to recover on it. debt collectors are not permitted to go directly and take money out of people's bank accounts. if we find that collectors doing that, that would be a violation of the statutes that we enforce

as well as likely in violation of statutes that other agencies enforce. host: our next call comes from manchester, new hampshire. caller: i have a quick story. a few years ago, i had a credit card. in zero of $1,500 on it. i fell on hard times. -- i owed $1,500 on ads appear the credit agency was calling me at least a dozen times a day. a1 a it paid in full. i was a couple months behind and told them i could give them $50 a month. that was not enough. they made the mistake of calling my work here in hampshire, that is against the law. i got a lawyer pierre not only did they waive the $1,500. this company that was harassing me, i ended up getting $3,000 because of their stupid this --

stupidness. host:--guest: the conduct you describe would be i believe a violation of the fair debt collection practices act. that could be frequency of calls. that could be harassing theory that could be something that give rise to action by the federal trade commission or could give rise to the private action like the one the call abroad, and that is something callers should think about doing when they think the debt collectors treating them in a way that is improper. to complain to the federal trade commission, complain to their state attorney general's. depending upon the case, perhaps consider retaining counsel on their own. host: next call comes from virginia on our line from democrats. caller: good morning. i became disabled and went through a lot of trouble and everything, ended up on disability, i had to end up

turning my car back in. i explained what happened and i obviously could not pay. the car is being sold, and there was still a balance. they never ended up calling me about it. i never heard anything about it. then, even four years after that, the company called me, and they are calling me about the repossessed car and telling me that i still owe the money. they kept calling me. they are calling me three times a week. they were calling me for two months straight. they were nasty. i said that the whole thing has passed and asked whether were calling me. they just kept calling me and told me they had the right to do that if they want to collect on the debt. is that something that normally happens to people? guest: yes, it can happen. whether there is debt that arises from trading something in which you have a security interest like a car that is not enough to pay off the balance of the loan, that can result in a

deficiency, which can lead to a deficiency judgment, depending on the state law. essentially what you did not pay on your car becomes a debt that can be subject to collection. that said, one of the things to be aware of this, like in this circumstance, if you think a collector is calling you in a way that is harassment, under federal law, if you write a letter to the debt collector and say, "i want you to seize contacting me," the debt collector must abide by that. if you have a very old that like that and someone is calling you in a way that you think is harassing and you need them to stop to get a break from their calls, you do have the right to send -- usually a letter to the debt collector demanding they stop contacting you. they must abide by that. host: we are talking with thomas pahl, of the federal trade

commission, assistant director of the department of financial practices. the federal trade commission gets more complete -- complaints about that collectors than any other industry. complaints in 2010 numbered this way -- back to the phones. atlanta, georgia. kevin on our line for independents. you are on the "washington journal." caller: in an excellent debt collector. i reside in the state of georgia. it seems as though as the years pass that the ftc, understanding they are there to protect this consumer, that they have also had defaulted to the point where they are enabling consumers to

sidestep their financial responsibilities. collection agencies are being sued seriously for small things. things that we were not able to do years before, which would have gotten us sued. there are just many things that the ftc has now that are allowing consumers to sidestep their debt rather than stepping up to the plate and handling their responsibilities. simply writing a letter and saying stop calling me about the money i owe does not seem fair. to say that they are at work and not call them -- well i'm at work, too, so i have to call you. there are things that are put in place for debt collectors that will assist them in getting paid as well rather than allowing consumers to spuriously sue that

collectors for doing the job they are paid to do. host: i want you to hold on while thomas' answers your question. guest: a couple of thoughts on that. we bring probably a handful of cases in a typical year against debt collectors, and it think the cases we bring our against particularly bad actors. i did not think the folks that we are suing is leading to the concern about avoidance of debt by consumers. i think that your point is something that i have heard much more about in the context of private suits brought by individuals. i believe there are 11,000 of those brought last year and some of them involve more technical violations of the fair debt collection practices act. i do not have an opinion on whether those cases are frivolous or are promoting the avoidance, but i think it is

important to make a distinction between the kind of cases the ftc brings and the kind of cases that these 11,000 or so private cases that are brought that i hear from many debt collectors -- they think that they are chilling their ability to collect on debts and are encouraging consumers not to pay them. >> at a consumer -- host: if a consumer feels like they are having a problem with a debt collector, they can go to the ftc. if the debt collector cannot get business done, where does he go for relief? guest: that is an interesting question. one of the options the debt collector always has is if i am concerned -- communicating with the consumer, they will not pay, they always had the option of suing in court. i understand that debt collectors may have some frustration about some of the restrictions that the law imposes on their ability to collect, but the alternatives

really are either to try to get the law changed or when the collection efforts are unavailing based upon compliance with the law, sue in court. host: thanks for calling. we're going to move to tulsa, oklahoma, on our line for democrats. caller: with a minute. they are taking money from people on social security. host: who is? caller: i was a debt collector 20 years ago and i was a good one. when i collected, i collected in colorado. they made me take the whole test, and we were bound by certain laws. i collected based on how i felt. they did not understand how i was doing it, but i was pulling in all the money that i was supposed to because i treated the people like i wanted to be treated, and i never had a problem collecting my debts. what i'm saying is, like, my

neighbor did social security. about seven years ago, her daughter was married, and she signed for them for some kind of loan. i told her -- her daughter got divorced, and i told her they should have added that bill on the divorce, and she did not understand that. she got her money back the first time. the second time, she did not. but bank of oklahoma is doing all kinds of crazy things. i'm trying to let people know that they need to check out oklahoma because oklahoma is doing some very bad, illegal things. i do not have a problem. even though i'm here, my money still goes to colorado. guest: i'm glad to hear that you were successful in collecting on debts by treating people well. i would hope that that is the sort of thing that more members of the industry do and that

those kind of practices are prevalent. with regard to social security, usually under federal or state law, social security payments are exempt from garnishment. essentially, what happens is if you do not pay a collector, a collector goes to court and gets an order to try to garnish payments that you are receiving. under federal and state law, that should not include social security payments. while a collector may say to someone, "you should be paying this out of your social security check," ultimately, if someone does not do that, the law does provide some protections for people who are receiving social security and other type of government benefits. host: back to the phones, long island, new york. christian, you are on "washington journal."

caller: yes, good morning. sad that to the woman who just called about taking social security, if someone has a garnishment on their account, all they have to do is pull the bank account and see if the deposit -- with the deposits came from. that debt is actually stop right there, and they have to put the money back. i was just going to comment on your other item where more firms front as debt collectors and in addition to that, what they do is they will do the -- that en masse, robo debt collecting. buying debt from different parts of the industry and then putting that into a program.

basically, then, they get a judgment in court because most people do not show up in court to defend their rights. they get that judgment and then they put a garnishment on their bank accounts right away. in new york, they stop people from getting their garnishments. they could not take any money out of the account after $1,500. if you have $1,500 or less in your account, they could not touch it. anything above $1,500 is fair game. before, if you have $1,500 in your bank account, they froze that or double that debt. they went to the bank and said, "here is an information subpoena. we want to know what the debtor has in their bank account." they would freeze $100 and the bank would get $200, and the consumer would have to go to the

bank, pay up all this money, plus whatever the debt -- host: we are going to leave it there. thanks for the call. talk to us about the garnishment process, and to the collectors have to go to court to get an order? guest: yes, they do. essentially, if you have a debt, a debt collector has to go to a state court judge and ask for an order from the judge to garnish either amounts in your bank account or to garnish your wages, and the court will decide whether or not to issue an order doing that. that is the point in the process which is very important for consumers who might be getting payment from, for example, social security or some sort of disability program, to make that clear to the judge. as the caller just noted, under many state laws and under federal law, there are restrictions on the ability of

these state court orders to get certain funds that have been deposited in your bank account or to get certain parts of your paycheck. so for that reason, what really should happen is that is the point at which consumers should be talking to the judge and responding and saying some of the money they are getting is from sources that really should not be subject to the collection through the district court litigation process. hopefully you will be able to persuade the judge that those assets should not be included, and that will protect the consumer. but to fall on one of the points the last caller made, which i think is extremely important, and it is one of the major problems we have found with debt collection litigation, and that is it really is a volume business. a lot of law firms collecting on bets are filing hundreds of thousands of cases at the same

time. what we have found is that roughly 99% or 95% of consumers never respond. never show up in court or never do anything to respond. what happens if you do not respond at all is the court will enter a default judgment against you. essentially, you lose and there is a new order from the court saying that you shall pay the debt. that is a major problem for consumers, so i would encourage people if they get served with notice that they have been sued on a debt, to definitely get in contact with either a lawyer or to come to court on their own and to make it clear whether or not this debt is their debt, whether the amount is correct and the like because if you do not show up, the court will enter an order against you, and you will be responsible for the amount included in that court

order. host: we are talking about debt collection practices with thomas pahl of the ftc. go ahead. guest: -- caller: my daughter signed up for an apartment, and it was promised to her for first month free. basically, what happened is she had an opportunity for a job in california, and she went ahead and took that position. being the immature little child she is, the job she took in california was almost three times the pay that she was getting back here in columbus. basically, what she did is left the apartment and before she left the apartment, she made it

clear to them that she had this opportunity for the job, and they said, "tough." she had asked if she could pay it off, the amount left over, and they said to pay it off, she had $3,700 that she could pay, and she basically said that, "i have done my arithmetic, and there's actually four more months i know you, and that is $3,320," and they said, "we want $3,700." $3,700. we have a court eviction against your right now. it, i need you to talk to the case for me. caller: what i am asking as does

an apartment complex have the right to go ahead and stay that she goes but much money -- say that she knows that much money, or are they responsible to it least try and rend better product and, and only have her responsible for the -- read that apartment, and only have her responsible for the rent until it is rented. guest: it would depend on the terms of the lease agreement between the owner of the apartment building and your daughter, as well as provisions of all ohio law. one thing i would -- of ohio law. one thing i would note is that federal law gives consumers the

right to demand the debt collectors verify the amount. so, if the debt collector claims someone almost $3,700, and you do not think that is the right amount, you can demand that they verify the dead. that means the debt collector -- the pact. the debt -- that means the debt collector has to justify. there is uncertainty about how much people all. it comes down to the uncertainty of what people all. sometimes the uncertainty is attached. i would encourage consumers that have doubts to go back to the debt collectors and say i want you to verify this date -- debt, because i want to make sure the amount is correct before i pay you. ginny s. want to know

if a debt collection agency can put a lien on your house? guest: they could go to the court. anyone who has a legal right to attach an asset, including your home, can do that. debt collectors would usually have to get an attorney to attached billing, but it is possible. host: paul is our next caller from illinois. caller: the reason i was calling it is there was an occasion where a debt collector a couple of years ago put a lien on an account i had. it was under $100. the court told them they had to

put the money back, but i talked to my bank, and they said they could put a lien on my account. i was wondering, could that happen again? i will listen? -- i will listen. guest: it is possible. in those circumstances, what i would do is raise concerns with the debt collector who is giving the lean, and then go back to your bank and raised concerns about the main. also, if you can, you can go to the regulator of the bank if you think a lame is improperly employed -- placed on your account. did them to look at it. -- get them to look at it. itself carlson's us this e-mail.

guest: well, a couple of things we have been trying to do. it is a significant concern that we hear about. collectors are calling tried to collect from the wrong people or the wrong amount. some of it is an information technology problem for debt collectors. usually, when a debt collector is trying to figure out how to contact someone, they do what is called skip tracing, getting information from third-party sources to figure out the most likely place to reach a consumer. that usually results in a number of phone numbers. they try those, obviously trying to find the person that oppose the death.

copley, as technology -- owes tthe debt. if you get calls were you are the wrong person, i would tell the collector and i am not your guy, you should stop calling me. the other thing is you could read a letter saying do not contact me again, sees communication, because that would trigger legal rights. host: the next call is sandra from massachusetts. caller: this has to do with the fact that a friend of mine was disabled, and he had diabetes. he he could no longer pay the

amount. anyway, he was dropped from that, went into a nursing home, and was in there for five years. the debt collector called our house, and said they were going to come after him. they sent a share of down to our house. i tried to explain the man was sick, in a nursing home, he lost his leg, had glaucoma, and has had heart problems. they would not listen. i ended up calling the nurse, and told them to expect that the sheriff was going to go down there. he did. he went right into his room, the man who was very ill and is

still at the nursing home. his check went to the nursing home. he opposed the nursing home because he cannot afford the nursing home -- owes the nursing home because it cannot afford the nursing home. guest: i am sorry to hear about the health problems of the individual you discussed. a couple of thoughts -- one is if you think a collection agency is crossing boundaries, i would definitely send them a letter, complained to the federal trade commission, your state attorney general's office, and also, depending on the circumstances, think about getting a private lawyer involved. one thing i would note, then most collectors, and there are

exceptions, of course, but most collectors do not want to spend time and effort if they do not think they're going to get money out of someone. i would hope that in addition to having some compassion for the circumstances of the person in the nursing home given their health problems and financial situation, i would hope, too, just as a matter of the effect of that collection that the debt collector there would realize that individual does not have the capacity to pay, and essentially give up on trying to collect on the deck. if they do not, definitely i would encourage you and the individual to do everything you can't do exercise -- you can to exercise your rights. host: we have no other e-mail from roy taylor writing from scotts co-, new york -- scott

cisco, new york. guest: a couple of different thoughts about that. a lot of debt is sold by creditors sallie mae, other creditors, banks -- debt is sold to the system, and debt collectors are retained by the purchasers of those debts to collect on it. a lot of debt collectors get what is called a contingent fee, so essentially what happens is where is the owner of the debt, whether it is the original creditor or someone who has bought the debt will say to a debt collector if you collect $100, you keep $20. that is more the way the relationship works. whoever owns the debt will retain a debt collector to collect on it, and pay them a

percentage of what is recovered. host: next is thomas in raleigh, north carolina on our line for republicans. caller: thomas, a great name, by the way. i am a 29-year-old disabled veteran of the marine corps. i have gotten into some trouble with some loans. i did not know how the cards still works regards bill works. -- regards bill work. guest: the one thing that makes student loans difficult for people that get into financial trouble is generally they're not discharge a bull in bankruptcy. even if you declare yourself a bankrupt, you are on the hook for your student loan. if you have other types of

loans you made no longer have to pay of them. in terms of debt collection and the tactics that collectors years, what is permissible, or impermissible, it is essentially the same. there might be reasons associated with the laws of bankruptcy and the like, which means a student loan debts might stay with consumers in financial distress longer than some other debts. host: a recent article in the detroit free press has the headline -- host: if you're in that situation and you want to negotiate, what does the ftc advise? guest: most debt collectors recognize there are calling people that have financial troubles, and it does not frequent that someone is going to pay 100 cents on the dollar when they get a call. most debt collectors are prepared for the idea that they

will except something less than the entire amount, or more likely they will see -- except payments over time to satisfy the amount. what i would suggest is first making sure the debt collector has the correct amount. i would suggest being straightforward about your ability to pay, and then seeing what you could work out. you surely, they are willing to negotiate because what is most valuable to them is getting a payment from you, and if that means getting payments over time, or something less than 100 cents on the dollar, they might be willing to do it. the only caveat i would add is i would not do that if the debt collector is someone that has been abusive or harassing before that. more or less, you have to protect yourself. in those circumstances i would

send the debt collector a letter. if you have a debt collector does not treating you that way and you have assets and want to pay off the debt, i would suggest engaging them in conversation, and being very precise, and professional, and hoping they will do the same. the last thing i would recommend is make sure you document any agreement you have to make -- to pay less, or more over time. phone calls can lead to a lot of confusion down the line as to what the arrangement was if you agreed to pay less than 100 cents on the dollar. definitely document it and keep your paperwork. host: j. on our line for independents from new work, new jersey -- network, new jersey. caller: i'm doing relatively

well. i pay my bills on time. unfortunately verizon said me a bill as a last bill. i did not owe the bill. i call them and told them there was a mistake. it was for $140. the admitted to me that it would be 150 two dollars. -- 150 two dollars. they could not correct the bill. they could not credit needed $12. they had made a $140. i called the state attorney's office. they turned me over to the ftc. they said we will take the report. the one guy on the phone was kind of ignorant to me, but they sent me off eventually, and turn me over to the fcc, and said as

long as i have paid the bill, they will take the report, but there is nothing they could do about it. my problem is not about j. russell. sorry, i gave my name,, but i can afford the bill. if i'm an elderly man, and i am having trouble paying bills, what about that lady? what she wanted it to pay the bill? -- going to do to pay the bill? guest: it is a tough situation when people do not have the money to pay bills, particularly when there are inaccuracies in them. it sounds to me, as unsatisfying as it was, you did exactly what one should do. you should be going back to the creditor and saying i do not all this, you should fix it, you

should complain to state and federal agencies. the one thing that i would recommend people do in this situation as well is to pay close attention to make sure that any kind of incorrect amount that they may all does not show up on their credit report. -- owe does not show up on their credit report. that is something many consumers are not aware of. once you have these problems, it might end up on one's credit report. make sure the debts are not showing up there, because it might impair your ability to get a mortgage, car loan, or something else in the future. as an annoying as it may be to have a small amount, a relatively small amount in a debt you do not all, it could have larger effects -- owe, it

could have larger effects. host: memphis, tenn., on our line for democrats. father of those $15,000 in child support, and a lien was put on his house. he appealed, and they said the papers saying he appealed the letter, but there was legal terminology. they said i had the opportunity to be on the phone for a phone hearing. when they have the phone hearing, they never called me, so i never knew what happened. and never did know what went on. six months later, he hit the lottery. guest: congratulations. caller: how ironic.

they sent me another form. they were supposed to have a child attorney from the state on my side same day you oldest, so we have the right to put the lien on it. we had the pillion march, and i got the lottery winnings. -- the appeal one in march, and i got the lottery winnings. they sent me the appeal -- the order, and they dismissed and then gave the man back his property. he sold it, and got all the money. when i said what could i do, they said you only had 30 days to appeal. i faxed the commissioner in tennessee, and nobody responded.

i am trying to find out what alternative i have. guest: it is probably a matter of state law, so i think you are talking to the right people to try to get that change or overturned. the one thing that i would recommend is when you talk to folks, make sure you explain your circumstances, essentially asking them -- it sounds you would be seeking to vacate an order or a judgment entered by a court, and i would suggest thinking about freezing your request in those terms, and pointing out the circumstances, which means why you think the order, ruling, or judgment is not correct. host: thomas pahl of the federal trade commission, a division of fairness practices. thank you for being on the program.

we'll be back with a discussion on energy tax credits that expire at the end of this year. you are watching "the washington journal." it is saturday, december 10. we will be right back. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> although the department has taken steps to ensure such tactics are never used again, it is a reality that we will continue to feel the effects of this flawed operation for years to come. guns lost during this operation will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border. >> it is time to write -- time to rewrite the clean water act. they were great, important, but they're out of date and need to be written. is this body that needs to do

it. >> many transactions have been in those less chaotic days, and i am not aware of all of those, nor do i have the information to be able to look at those transactions. >> with hundreds of hours of new public affairs programming available each week, the c-span video library is your source to find what you want, when you want. it is washington, your wife. >> throughout my military career i prided myself on not being afraid to tell people what i thought. the worst thing you can do is let a senior leader handed down the wrong road if you are thinking we ought to take another look at this, because people's lives could be at stake, or we have an obligation and a duty to be good stewards of the resources the public entrusts us with.

so, you sometimes have to be courageous in a meeting where everyone else's head is going up and down and you are going i think i have a different perspective. the major general on her life and career as the highest female rank in the united states army. sunday, on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: kateri callahan is head of the alliance to save energy and a set to talk about tax credits set to expire. first of all, what is the alliance to save energy? guest: we are a nonprofit group based in washington, d.c., and we were formed with a mission to advance the energy efficiency for the environmental and economic benefits, and the energy security enhancements the pickup -- that come when you become more energy efficient.

host: what are the tax credits, and why they set to expire? guest: there is one important one for consumers, a tax credit for up to $500 for insulating, putting in new windows, and four inside the home in before inside the home with the fish and ventilation systems. it is a tax credit available for qualified products said it will expire on december 31 unless extended by the congress. it is an important tax incentive because right now homeowners are looking to save on energy bills, but they often do not have to invest the money necessary. this white uncles and helps it to make the investment, which it this way, and uncle sam helps you to make -- this way, of

course and helps you to make the investment. it is important to continue. but. only 10% of the homes have been built to withstand that qualifies them for the tax credit. there was a credit to encourage people to use mass transportation. seems anywise and tom foolish. host: why are they being allowed to expire? guest: they were only put in place temporarily, and they began in 2005. they were reinstated in 2008, and then reinstated and actually increased, the homeowner's tax credit was increased as a part of the economic stimulus package. to keep only been extended for one or two years at a time. we are hopeful congress will see fit to extend it, but you never know.

host: previously, the tax credit was up to $1,500, and has been reduced to $500. why the reduction? guest: it is bottom line economics to the federal government. how much are they willing to give? we believe the $1,500 is a much better incentive because the kinds of purchases people are making tend to be high-cost. if you're putting a new windows, by a new roof, a new air conditioner, these are expensive purchases. the more generous the tax incentive, the more likely homeowners are to avail themselves. the benefit is to the homeowner, but it is also a benefit to our country, because the less energy we use, the less we have to produce, the less pollution we are creating. there are societal benefits.

host: kateri callahan is the president of the alliance to save energy and is here to talk about energy efficient tax credits which are set to expire at the end of the year. republicans can get involved in. you can also send us messages through e-mail and twitter. our first call comes from memphis, tenn., and our line for democrats. if theyi'm wondering have credit for renters if you upgrade, or get energy efficient products for your apartment? guest: as long as it is a qualified use of equipment, it

is available for anyone to read what you need is a certification from the manufacturer of the equipment. he need to keep it in your records. they are not discriminating against renters as opposed to owners. it is anyone that makes the purchase of the qualified product and installs it. host: what does qualified product mean? if i am a renter, say i put plastic on my windows, can i get a tax credit for that? guest: only if there is a qualified product. there will be a manufacturer's label. there are a window film products that qualify. weatherstripping, many products qualify, and typically they need to be energy star labeled. what i would recommend is everyone goes on our website,

and they could see a list of all qualified product. dupont -- the department of energy has the same kind of information. if they can find it piteously by researching -- they can find it easily buy researching on the web. host: our next call comes from illinois and our line for independents. caller: i worked as a construction contractor. i went through the illinois home whether a station program. -- weather is asian program. they said your savings-to- investment ratio on windows, you never get your money out of them. you're better off putting plastic over the windows, and insulate, or weather stripping around the doors.

i want to get that point out there. guest: i think it depends on what condition your windows are in, how many windows you have. again, i would direct people to the department of energy's web sites, as there are payback periods, the expected savings, but there are a lot of different choices. that is really important. people that do not want to put heavy investment in, there are a lot of products that are very cost-effective that are not very costly. if i would say a programmable thermostat -- you could get one of those items for as little as $35, and you could save up to 10% on your heating and cooling at home. the savings can begin immediately. there are different ways and different levels of investment that can be made, but there are

energy efficient of grids that almost anyone can do. host: democrats line, huntington, west virginia. caller: i would like to point out three things. transportation, which requires a lot of our energy resources, is one of the main thing is this costing this country energy resources. i have no idea and i wanted to try to talk yesterday -- i have an idea, and i wanted to talk yesterday with the people you had on, but i would like to suggest to her, you hear about high-speed rail, but no one talks about how to make high- speed rail pay for itself. you tend -- you could wind high- speed rail corridors with wind

turbines and solar panels, and connect them directly up as power sources to the high-speed rail, and take a lot of transportation off of the grid immediately. perhaps, you would have enough energy left over from this creation to eventually supply our grid. host: your response, kateri callahan? guest: i think it is a terrific idea. we are very much in favor of mass transportation, high-speed rail, magnetic levitation trains if we could make that work. i think there is investment and interest in this area. i would like to see it happen. your idea is something many are exploring currently. we are focused on trying to get tax incentives to encourage people to take mass transportation, and also to keep in place incentives for recharging properties that are

set to expire. there is also a tax incentives available for electric vehicles, whether they are hybrid or battery-powered. the maximum available is $7,500. we are focused on that. we are also focus on finding federal resources to invest in good ideas like this gentleman's. host: if you put solar panels on your house or a wind million your backyard, was disqualified? -- or a wind mill in your backyard? would disqualify? guest: -- this qualify? guest: it is important to look at the fine print and find out which resources qualify. there is a 30% tax credit that is available.

host: brian dunn on our line for independents, morgantown, west virginia. caller: the energy efficient credits are only for home appliances, or do they qualify for things like computers? guest: these are four particular home equipment, and it is basically around heating and cooling systems in your home -- high-efficiency fans, hot water heaters, air conditioners, and heating equipment. then, also, again, for the envelope -- insolation, windows, qualified roofing materials, doors. those other kinds of things said are eligible. i would suggest that if you are in the market for smaller home appliances, you might want to

check to see if there are rebates available through your utility provider or the state. there is a lot of money that has been made available to get people to purchase energy star products in different categories. you could find information about what might be available at the department of energy's web site, which is energy.gov. you could find direction is towards the incentives available in your home town. host: our next call comes from pennsylvania on our line for republicans. caller: i was wondering who funds the organization you are president of? guest: we get funds from three different sources. we get one-third from charitable foundations. the second third is from various federal agencies for a specific

project work, and the third firm comes from contributions from the corporate sector. we have a wide and varied funding portfolio, a few well. all or organizational budget last year was $15 million. we are headquartered in washington, d.c., but have offices in california, atlanta, and four offices outside of the u.s.. host: this from twitter. guest: there is an incentive available to manufacturers. each manufacturer of high- efficient products can get credit for making those very efficient products. their limited to $25 million per manufacturer, but that is available only for products in

the west. the congress, in making incentives to put forward here is trying to keep jobs in our down-home -- our home, if you will, the u.s. host: are there incentives for consumers that buy those products? guest: there are some incentives available through states, and door retail programs. the incentive a confederal level are only around building and the heating and cooling systems in the homes. host: we are talking about energy efficient tax credits which are set to expire at the end of the year with kateri callahan, president of the alliance to save energy. james, our line for democrats from lexington, ky. guest: my state. caller: thank you.

i have purchased appliances with the credit, and when it came to a tax time, i was told i could not take it off my taxes because i was not a builder. guest: there are different tax credits for builders as opposed to home owners. i am not sure what you were trying to deduct. if it was in the heating or ventilation rome, you might have said qualifying products. caller: it was for refrigerators, and kitchen appliances. guest: there are not federal tax credits for those. kentucky might have had rebates available through stimulus dollars, but there are not

federal tax incentives available for consumers for that category of products. host: cleveland, ohio, on our line for republicans. caller: senior citizens that did not make the money to file taxes, if each -- that do not need the money to file taxes, i had to take mine out of savings, and a stipend ahead from military pay to get a furnace and air-conditioner. is it possible for me to make a filing even though i make less than $30,000 a year to get that tax credit? guest: i should say i am not a tax expert. i cannot answer that question for you. i would suggest to you go online, and you can check of the form that needs to be filed, which is 50-95, i believe, and

that would let you know whether or not you are eligible. i can not get into if you did not file taxes if you will be eligible. host: fort wayne, indiana, alan on our line for independences. caller: talking about solar panels, not one would be sold without tax credits. they absolutely do not work, and they are too expensive. electric cars are not selling. why? they do not work. if you factor in the cost of electricity you have to use to run them, they use more energy than the regular automobile. so, now, you're asking me as a taxpayer to pay for the products of other people by. i do not want to do that. these products are so good and such a great idea, you should not need tax credits.

guest: let me just say that the energy efficient tax credit that i have been talking about today actually do pay for themselves. so, you do get a return on the investment when you upgrade your hvac equipment in the home, when you insulate. it could save you up to 20% and heating and cooling bills, half of the costs of the homeowner each month. it is very important. the other thing that is important, particularly those incentives for manufacturers, is it is encouraging them to bring more efficient products to the market that benefit everyone. all people, as they buy products that are more energy efficient, will realize savings on energy bills. an example will be the refrigerator. a refrigerator you buy today will save you about $100 each

year on energy costs over one that was built in the 1980's. by the way, they're bigger, perform better, and last longer. if you look at the market transformation that has happened, it has been because of energy efficiency standards put in place. there are benefits that go far beyond just the person that makes the investment, and they do pay for themselves and have a good return over time. host: john, and our line for republicans. you are on "the washington journal" with kateri callahan, president of the alliance to save energy. caller: good morning. it is a great topic. i agree with you that it makes sense to install energy efficient things for the homes such as thermostats, insulation, and so on.

on the other hand, the gentleman called in about how you raise $40,000 on a car that is worth $17,000. that is after the $7,500 that we have to kick in to make that car. you did not agree with the gentleman that was talking about solar panels and propellers -- wind chargers on the high-speed rail. let's be honest. that is not going to work. i could put a propeller on my car, and reduce energy consumption. good luck. guest: i was not agreeing specifically with what he was a suggestion, because i do not

know enough about what his idea is, but i agree that we need to invest, and do further research and development of those types of technology and high-speed rail. with respect to the electric vehicle, one of the things that are there, and the reason tax incentives are put in place is to try to transform the market. that costs money. when new technology comes out, it is that low volume, early generations, and it will be more costly. the idea behind a tax incentive is to get dead market transformation started -- get that market transformation started, so product prices could come down. when you have price incentives, they need to be for a limited duration. the idea is to jump-start the market. i hope you would agree with me

that it is important for us as a nation to wean ourselves off of being solely the paula be dependent on petroleum -- solely dependent on petroleum. we need to identify feels we can use domestically and cleanly. that is why those incentives are in my place. they need to be limited in duration, and probably in the number of products, in this case vehicles, that can help themselves of that credit, but it is a good way and a proven way to jump start the market. host: in addition to being president of the alliance to save energy, kateri callahan is also a board member with the business council for sustainable energy, the keystone center, and is on the advisory council for the "better homes and gardens" magazine, and for the u.s. chamber of commerce.

host: new jersey, dawn. caller: i installed a new hvac system. my income is primarily from social security, almost entirely. i do not have enough income to file any income tax returns, and i want to know, and i eligible for the $500, or is it just for people that actually both taxes? is it a refundable tax credit? >> it is a tax credit, so it goes against what you owe uncle sam. if you are not paying taxes, i would suspect you will not be eligible for it. again, i am not a tax expert. i would suggest you look on the

irs website, the tax forms, and that will help you with the. here is a tax credit, meaning it goes against what you owe uncle sam in that given year when the product is purchased and installed. host: where the chances this tax credit will be renewed, and so who is supporting it in congress? guest: whether or not it is renewed is questionable. it does not bode very good right now -- looked very good right now. the same time it was renewed in 2008, it was the same thing, done as part of the bigger tax package, extending the bush era tax cuts. if we get a tax package going this year, and there is work being done on that, these extensions could be part of that. that is what we are working on. there are a lot of supporters for the energy tax incentives,

starting with senator jeff bingaman, the chair of the senate energy committee, and also on the finance committee. he and senator snow had introduced a package and made changes to the ones that are there. there is some strong support. it is really a question of is a bigger tax patient rich package going to go with it? -- tax package going to go with it? host: our conversation continues with our line for independents , from wilmington, delaware. caller: i have a 2007 hybrid. does that come under the umbrella? guest: there were tax incentives in place for hybrid, and electric vehicles, that expired in 2010. they were covered, there were different levels of incentives,

depending on how much -- or, the vehicle type, and its performance. there were tax incentives available through 2010. they were available to manufacturers only up to a certain threshold of vehicles. i am not sure who manufactured your vehicle, but in 2007 there probably were tax incentives available. host: bob, in west virginia, and our line for democrats. caller: i have double pane windows. these windows are filled with some kind of gas, and when it loses its gas, the sweating inside of the window makes it impossible to see out of these windows.

it costs about $350 to have one window re-paned, and i have two of them. can i get credit for that? thank you very much. this is my first time on c-span. guest:, thank you, bob. there are credits available for qualified, energy star windows. again, what you need to do, is when you go to the home- improvement store, look to see that the manufacturer has certified that they are eligible for the credit. host: if they are, in fact, energy star windows, is there less likely to be the sweating but bob was talking about, or is that a phenomenon that goes along with double pane windows? guest: i cannot answer that question. there are manufacturers

guarantees, but i do not know which products will be more prone to that or less. host: brian, and our line for republicans from indianapolis. caller: i had to deal with the thermostat in the home. is this just not another way for the government to regulate the energy and what is going on at home? guest: i am not sure i understand the question. they are programmed by the home owner, and you established a program based on your lifestyle. what it allows you to do is be comfortable when you are in the home, but to avoid paying the costs of heating your home when no one is there except the cat, or maybe your goldfish. the government cannot control the temperature and programming of that thermostat.

host: john is our next caller from new york city on our line for republicans. caller: i was listening to some of the previous calls from the republicans on this program, and it just goes to show you how the far right has tried to call off the whole conversation -- co-ops the whole conversation. i am for any kind of the versification of this energy so we can get this -- off of this addiction off of fossil fuels. we are getting into wars because of this addiction. they are putting out these myths that you cannot do this, i cannot do that, you have to put a wind turbine on your car -- some of the craziest things you hear from the far right is just ludicrous. i am all for any sort of energy efficiency that is when to help us get to a safer world, with

cheaper oil eventually. having all these people basically stick their hand -- head in the sand, afraid of change, and basically supporting entrenched interests is the worst thing for the country going forward. host: john, have you done any energy efficient upgrades to your house or apartment there, in new york? caller: high rent, so there are some minimal things i have done for my windows, but there's really only so much i can do. ed cit, there is very little available. -- actually, there is very little available. there should be more available to help push this along. with the gridlock in congress, i think there'll be minimal chance of that happening. guest: can i make a statement?

we look at energy efficiency as a nonpartisan issue. we're not talking about my board, but it includes membership from the senate and house, and we have very conservative republican members supporting our efforts and issues, and very liberal democrats, and everyone in between the political spectrum. you will find republicans who are strong supporters of energy efficiency, and i would cite senator rob portman of ohio, who has joined with a democrat from new hampshire to put forward an energy efficiency bill that is built around driving energy efficiency for the economic competitiveness reasons and economic security. it does environmental benefits that go along with it, but here you have a republican and democrat working together, pushing legislation could they

have gotten it through the senate energy committee. we are hopeful it will be considered before the full senate. this is not an issue that should be partisan. is something for everyone. guest: our next call -- host: our next call comes from hawaii for kateri callahan. caller: i have a few comments and questions. i worked in solar. proves itself all the time in my state with solar thermal. incentives are only trying to match at some point what will incentives have been for a very long time. -- oil incentives have been for a long time. efficiency makes water stay hot in the pipes for a long time. it is incredible for people to

knock efficiency is ridiculous. for people to knock solar thermal is ridiculous. it works. it is the best they are seeing for the money. the solar can definitely pay for itself of electric bills, which is skyrocketing here. host: have you got a question? caller: there is another bill called the 16-03, and it is supposed to expire. it is a grant for energy products that are commercial. i am not sure if it will be bundled together. it is important. i know congress is probably going to try to kill it. but industry, -- the industry,

not the solyndra stuff, but it is really at a press of this right now. price points of the modules have gone down. we are at a point where projects can be built at a cost-effective way with this incentive, and the payback across the u.s. will be significant. host: i want to get a quick response from kateri callahan, but before i do, tell me what the fluctuation of the performance is of the solar panels in hawaii during the rein in season? caller: is extraordinarily good. in the areas that have less sunshine, you get about 86%. there is an organization called crcc for solar thermal, and all of this stuff has to be rated for hot water and efficiency. host: al, wel, --

will leave it there. kateri callahan? guest: of the problem we have with tax credits is they keep expiring, and they're only put forward for a year or two at a time. it makes investment by businesses very risky in these new technology areas. what we need is some consistency in policy, some long-term -- long enough so that the market can be appropriately seated for these technologies. we need long term, sustained tax incentives that will allow for the kind of investment that will get us to build market scale. we do not have that right now. tax credits come and go for wind, solar, and energy efficiency, and it makes it difficult to drive the investment that would have this be a huge part of our economy. host: kateri callahan has been

our guest. she is the president of the alliance to save energy. thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: coming up tomorrow, the senior vice president with the national association of realtors, laurence yun. we will also have a roundtable discussion talking about the latest developments in the 2012 presidential campaign, and we will wrap up the show with david satter with john hopkins school of advanced international studies to talk about the political and social unrest in russia that is followed the december 4 parliamentarians elections. thank you for watching this edition of "washington journal." we will see tomorrow morning, at 7:00 a.m. eastern. 7:00 a.m. eastern.