with the connecticut congressman and a louisiana congressman will discuss medicare payments to doctors which are scheduled to be cut in january. later, long-term unemployment rates. ♪ host: the office of personnel management has a front page story telling the federal government to start preparing for a federal shutdown come friday. also, the associated press and others reported this morning, the democrats are abandoning their demand for a surtax on millionaires. they also call it a sign that lawmakers are trying to broker a

compromise. that abandonment, as it is being reported, will be our topic for the first 45 minutes. we're interested in what you think of it as a strategy. we have divided our phone lines politically this morning. you can reach out to us via e- mail, if you want. if you want to send us a tweet -- twitter.comcspanwj. here is the headline. this is out of washington. even though there is no quick path to bipartisan agreement on

the legislation, which would prevent an automatic social security tax increase on 160 million workers, the longest wood of her january 1. some details reported by the associated press. this is from the cbs news site. it would exclude the 1.9% surtax on people earning more than $1 million per year. one person who has been licia ing this is a for "the washington post." can you fill in the blanks about this right up we have been seeing about the proposed dropping of the surtax? guest: sure.

there have been a couple developments. we solve the associated press report. they say that senate democrats aren't dropping this demand for a surtax. that has been the main democratic negotiating point from the very start of the stocks. any time a piece of president obama -- it has not happened a lot of times. buy them signaling after a meeting at the white house that they are considering dropping this, it's a sign that they realize they are getting into the 11th hour. exactly what will be in the compromise is what we are hoping to get a little more detail on today. basically, they are sending out a signal on this. it also comes as there's a bigger battle over keeping the

government funded past the deadline, which is midnight tomorrow. host: the office of personnel management already warning employees about a potential shutdown. guest: yes, that is the one thing that is usually not a good sign for congress and washington as a whole. once those signals start going out to employees themselves, that's when people start to get worried. i have been getting e-mails from readers. you know that once the debate pits that point, members themselves have to be worried about what kind of affects this will have. members of both parties have abolished it has not been one of the most productive in recent years -- have acknowledged it has not been one of the most productive in recent years. i think everyone has their sights set on getting this

wrapped up as soon as they can. the payroll tax cuts in the government funding bill are both very politically intertwined right now. neither side wants to give up concessions on one that could potentially affect how the other will get resolved. host: in the next day and a half, what happens on both these fronts? start with the payroll tax cuts. >> the house and senate are both in session today. they will probably have private meetings to determine the way forward on that. i think a lot of that progress really depends on how the closer deadline of midnight tomorrow -- how those budget talks get resolved. very early in the morning, house republicans on the probation's committee announced they are planning to go forward with this spending bill on their own. if they do that, that would put

the bill in the senate. it would be up to them to either pass that or try to work toward an agreement on the payroll tax cut. it seems like that's the first step that will happen in the house. we have also seen the white house say they would prefer to see a short-term spending resolution. that is not something republicans agreed to. there's a little bit of uncertainty on all those fronts. we will probably see a little more movement and hopefully a little more clarity today. host: if the house passed its own version, would it adjourned? guest: that's the number-one question right now. a lot of the house republicans met for two hours. they came out of the meetings very energized. a couple of them said to reporters afterwards that they were going on offense.

they could pass this measure. they would be leaving it up to senate democrats. this could also be posturing. as we know, democrats have also been trying to gain leverage by holding the funding measure out there. so, it is still a tough call to see whether they are actually considering doing that or if they're using that as the latest bargaining chip. host: if the millionaire surtax proposal is dropped, what are the political ramifications for democrats? guest: it is similar to how the keystone pipeline will play a lot for republicans. it was on their wish list of things they would like to see. we saw last weekend, senator graham said he did not see that

happening. these are the items that each side would like to see, but probably will not see. there are several different items that could be included that both sides may agree on. some of the things that have been included already are continuing the two-year pay freeze on federal workers. there are some other proposals that both sides agreed to, such as cutting back on benefits for the wealthy, and some of those benefits would produce several billion dollars' worth in revenue. those are some options. i'm sure there are other things on the table that we haven't heard yet. harry reid said to reporters yesterday that there have been a number suggestions raised, but he has not given us any more detail. host: felicia sonmez with "the washington post" -- serves as

the washington correspondent. thank you for your time. guest: thank you so much. host: again, your thoughts on this proposal about the dropping of the millionaire surtax in order to get payroll tax cuts passed. the lines will be on your screen. pick the one that best represents you. again, you can also reach out to us on e-mail. twitter is available to you, too. from a democrat from washington, d.c. what do you think about this latest news? go ahead.

good morning. caller: good morning. enough of this taxing the rich. this is the time for them to find another lever so they can force the republicans into taxing the rich. there are other ways. they have all had it in the books. they knew where they were going. it was just a matter of letting the country know where and how these republicans are thinking. they had to find a way to thwart it and they have. by the end of the week, sunday, they will find a compromise. as a matter of fact, right now, they are talking.

they are talking. they are finding ways to do this. i bet they will come up with something. the country will not be shut down. the government will not be shut down. host: the next call is edna on the line for republicans, new york. caller: i think they might as well go ahead and abandon it. i'm tired of this. all i have is my social security. maybe it might matter to the working people. i am really tired of this whole topic. i feel like we look to the world as if we are retarded. i am worried the world will back away from us in that way, because we act retarded. the congress cannot function.

i love the idea of belonging to lincoln's party, but he would be ashamed of us. i heard a comment the other day from coburn. he said that all the costs would be put on the grandchildren because they take the money from social security. they take money from social security for everything. we are the only ones alive. the children have to be right now. the unemployed kids have to eat. even rich kids have to be right now. they cannot wait for the future. they will be grown up in some time. they have to live to get there. social security is not dry yet. they have plenty of time to put it back. stop this nonsense. host: this is from baghdad. leon panetta arriving there to

formally shut down the nine-year war in iraq. he said it was worth the cost in blood and dollars, as it said iraq on a path to democracy. he and other u.s. leaders have participated in a symbolic ceremony in which the flag of the u.s. forces in iraq will be officially retired. san diego, california. priscilla on the line for democrats. caller: yes, good morning. host: go ahead. caller: hi. we are not going to get anywhere with what's happening in washington. why don't they do a straight up or down vote on taxes and unemployment? one way to fund it is close all the corporate loopholes, since

they are not going to raise taxes on their rich friends. why don't they just close the loophole? that would generate enough money. it would fund the things that we need in this country. secondly, why do we allow one powerful political party to stop a certain segment of this country from voting, or take away the power of the vote in michigan? we hear very little from the media in the united states about what is taking place. host: rockford, michigan. lorraine on the line for republicans. caller: i believe having the surtax dropped on millionaires is the right thing to do. it will stimulate the economy, i believe. they're the ones who have the money to hire people. host: this is paul ryan. they propose a another way --

they propose another way of looking at medicare. partial for privat privatization. they write this. private plans will have to develop better delivery models and is in better ways to care for patients with chronic

illnesses. host: again, their plan in the op-ed pages of "the wall street journal" this morning, where you can read that by yourself. massachusetts on the line for independents. john, what do you think about this proposal to drop a surtax? caller: i think this is back- and-forth. our freedoms are basically gone. now we have to settle with these insider traders here. they go into government to make

money, not to represent the people. they talk about how they carry the constitution, but they are eroding the constitution by taking our rights away. they might sign something into law where basically -- they create the problems to take the rights away from people. everybody knows that the war was started by profiteering through the corporations and the contractors in europe. we are paying our soldiers pennies on the dollar and contractors are making money. we make money off of war instead of peace. host: laurel, maryland. david on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking my call. it seems like it is always the

last minute when we decide to take revenue from the old sturbridge -- the ultra rich, not the rich. there are people making hundreds of millions of dollars who are not taxed. it is always at the last minute. no business works that way. if you look at any business, they do not tie how we pay for our coffee in the morning to how we market our goods and services to people in the community. no one ties all those things together into one bill and tries to solve them. i think it should have been a separate bill. in the final analysis, people in the middle class were getting frozen out. the poor always suffer in the end. host: you can also register

comments on facebook.com/csapn. matt sttueck writes -- josh gregory also weighing in. alexandria, virginia. mike on the line for independents. caller: good morning. falsely protesting against democratic programs, wherever they may be, saying that they protect american jobs. well, closing the government will cost the income of tens of thousands of small employers, small businesses across the

country. they do not recognize that in their protests. thank you. host: the conservative magazine posted this last night, taking a look at the republicans running for the presidential nomination. they called it, "winnowing the field." much of the article deals with newt gingrich.

host: it goes on to talk about others in the race, and showing some favor for mitt romney. let me find that. georgia, kelvin on the line for democrats. what do you think about this proposal from the democrats? caller: i think it is a good proposal. bottom line is this. the whole country should see that republicans are being destructive. they are just trying to get obama out of the white house.

obama needs to stay in the white house. the house and senate need to be democrats for the next four years and i guarantee this country would do a lot better, if the whole house and senate was democrats, and leave obama where he is. all republicans are doing is being destructive. host: tampa, florida. vernon on the line for republicans. caller: yes, i think the federal government needs to learn how to balance their budget, rather than try to raise taxes and add additional programs. the government was not intended to receive the funds that they are to raise eight basic government. host: this is "the wall street

journal" this morning. "disability benefits system faces review." host: dover, ohio. mike on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

everybody who gets a paycheck, which is almost everybody in the country, is going to get the 2.5% payroll cut and then you are going to charge the millionaires 1.9%, so i do not understand the big deal. they are going to get a little over 2% back and then have to give 1.9% back to the government. you need a bored line. host: why does it not make sense? caller: you are giving them payroll tax cuts greater than you are increasing the amount of money to pay for it. the millionaire gets charged up to $106,800.

after that, you are going to charge him 1.9%. he has to give that back. he gets a credit of over 2% and then has to give back 1.9%. how does that make any sense? host: this is steve on e-mail this morning. matthew daniels from twitter this morning saying -- leesburg, virginia. this is scott on the line for republicans. caller: hello. i just wanted to make a comment to get rid of the millionaires' tax until after they get a balanced budget amendment. then i would be happy to pay the extra money, as long as it goes

to paying off the deficit. host: what leads you to that conclusion? caller: every time i turned around, there's more benefits given out. the pie is only so big. if you keep doing that, it does not pay off the deficit. somewhere down the road, we are going to have a deficit that is more than the gdp. host: do you fall into those who would get a surtax? are you there? los angeles, california. john on the line for independents. caller: thank you for c-span. i just had a common. i think that the democrats, republicans, everyone in this country should stop blaming each other and sit down and try to figure out how to come to a common solution as for the

disability thing, i think people who are disabled -- they obviously do need their funding. they are disabled, but they should not let that run their lives. they should really sit down and change their attitude about what it means to be disabled and never accept that label of disability. thank you. god bless you. host: "the new york times" this morning highlights the president's visit to north carolina yesterday. leon panetta participated in formal ceremonies in iraq. "his speech was infused with praise for the military." here is president obama thanking troops. >> iraq is not a perfect place. it has many challenges ahead.

we are leaving behind a solid, stable, and self-reliant iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. we are building a new partnership between our nations. with anding a war, not final battle, but a final march toward home. this is an extraordinary achievement -- nearly nine years in the making. . host: that was president obama from fort bragg, north carolina and yesterday. if you would like to see the whole speech, go to our web site, c-span.org. another reaction from the senate floor yesterday. this is from senator john mccain, in which he gave his thoughts on the war ending in iraq. >> unfortunately, it is clear that this decision of a complete

pullout of the united states troops from iraq is dictated by politics and not our national security interests. i believe history will judge this president's leadership with a score and the stain that it deserves. host: we have about 10 more minutes or so talking about this story from the associated press. here is the headline. this is an effort about payroll tax cuts. on twitter -- atlanta, georgia on the line for democrats. hello. are you there? we will go to texas, republican line. caller: i do not believe obama

really believes what he said. he just read a speech. they are criticizing mitt romney about changing positions on issues. obama is doing the same thing there. host: we are talking about the payroll tax cut. caller: i was thinking about the war. that is what was specifically mentioned. as far as the surtax, we need to compromise both ways, both on spending and tax increases, but it needs to be fair. we know that not everyone is paying their fair share. 47% of americans do not pay any taxes. bottom line, i think everyone has already mentioned most of those comments. congress has spent its money over the years -- social security is in trouble. in 1983 or 1985, they increased

the social security taxes to pay for these baby boomers. what did congress do? they continue to spend the money, both democrats and republicans. we are really in trouble. i hope there will be compromise to pay down the debt. that would rejuvenate the economy, i think. obviously, there would be more investment. people would be investing in a stable country. we're already looking at europe and finding out that they are in big time thadebt. we always look at the socialist countries. they are cutting down all their austerity programs. that's the reality. it's going to hurt more when we have to cut 25%. i wish somebody would really explain how long it would take

to pay off $1 trillion from taxes. it would take years. host: most americans want congress to vote to continue the payroll tax cuts.

"it would cost a family making $50,000 about $1,000." facebook is another way you can weigh in. two responses specifically this morning. . sam stone, minnesota. steve on the line for independents. caller: in the building behind you, nothing but domestic terrorism. what i see behind you -- host: we heard you. follow up on that. caller: get together.

to leave out the keystone pipeline. that is the sticking point right there. let's get it together. thank you. host: a new survey on death sentences. chino hills, california. ray on the line for republicans. caller: first, is the only reason the republicans want the democrats to abandon the surtax

is because it creates jobs, millionaires are not the only ones who create jobs. people create jobs. people have innovative ideas, students, who go to college -- the most reliable source to create jobs. they are the next source of innovation. with the students graduating and without support from government agencies to get students to go to college and graduate, that is where the real money is. that is where the innovation is. they say we need new engineering, the new things that everyone else is going to follow -- that is the only way we're going to get out of this. host: more young people on insurance, according to a story in usa today -- in "usa today."

this is killing kennedy -- is kelly kennedy. host: fisher, arkansas. glenda on the line for democrats. caller: george bush stole the presidency from al gore and then robbed the country and now does not want to tax the people who have all the money.

if that does not make sense to this united nations, i would like to find a country -- this one has changed so radically. now, where is george bush, giving his advice? you do not see him. you see clinton out here trying to help. where is bush? he has his head in the sand, where it should be. thank you so much. host: melanie, democrats line. guest: i do not think they should give the millionaires the extra money that they want. if the democrats. caving in, grover norquist is going to own this country. if the democrats hold the line,

-- host: then what does it do for the payroll tax cuts? caller: then maybe the people will recall the republicans. host: this is "the wall street journal." "federal authorities probe allegations of cell phone tracking."

host: washington, d.c. anna on the line for independents. caller: hi. i wanted to find out why everyone is concentrating on this menial little tax when the national defense authorization act has had a complete blackout. i do not understand. the u.s. is now being classified as a warfield. people will be arrested for no reason. why are you people not covering this? host: we show the debate that went on on capitol hill yesterday, and you will probably see it on our web site, as well.

randy on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: on this tax thing, compromise is a great thing. ever since obama gave in on the bush tax cuts, the republicans have been playing us democrats like a bunch of sheep fiddles. my 24-year-old, who four years ago was so giddy about obama said, "the democrats do not have any balls anymore -- we've got to find a third party." that whole college group was all giddy about obama. between 47% to 51% of people do not pay any taxes. they do not even realize when they say that -- that means that

percentage of americans do not earn enough money to qualify to pay federal taxes. that's part of the problem. nobody is making any money. you want to help the budget? take this plan b medicare and the afghan and iraq war off budget. make them vote on it every year. you want the money? pay for that plan b. pay for your little wars. these democrats, you've got to start standing up for our values. just being a republican in disguise does not get it no more. i would never think that i would be with a third party. i'm a democrat. i am 54. i was born and raised democrat, uaw, am proud of it, but i think -- i have democrats now that i have to worry more about than the republicans.

host: "orange county register" this morning looking at income. "49.1 million, the number who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor." in our final segment, we will look at a new survey done by the kaiser family foundation and npr looking at those who classify themselves as unemployed and underemployed and looking at some statistics. that will be at 9:15 this morning.

baltimore, maryland. michael on the line for republicans. you are on. caller: i hope you give me the maximum time allowed. i probably have not called in four months. on the first planned the lady made, the two points about george bush stole the election -- if george bush stole the election, that means all his choices were invalid. if all of those choices were invalid, he should have for crimes. everything that he did should be thrown back at him, because he was in person meeting -- was impersonating the president of the united states. on the payroll tax cuts, tea party, republicans, they say they want jobs, jobs, jobs. they screwed everybody around.

the republicans, what they really want is racism. everybody knows that. the only people voting for them are the other racists. host: florida, carolyn on the line for independents. caller: the top 1%, most of those people got that money because they shipped the jobs overseas. the surtax on the rich, and they get a lot of benefits. they get free checking, lower interest rates. they should be able to pay a little bit more towards helping those -- people who are working for those companies, as well as the people who are retired, the people on social security, medicare. they basically cannot afford it. we need to be able to keep those

people in the system. thank you. host: two legislators in our first two segments to talk about those issues. representative bill cassidy will join us at 8:30. next, representative jim himes from connecticut will join us to talk about that. we will be right back. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> next month, the supreme court will hear oral arguments on the

case still in with the constitutionality of the current fcc standards for indecency. it cites a 1978 case, fcc v. pacifica foundation. this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> the listener pointed out that the words for broadcast at the time in the afternoon when a child could have been tuning the dial and would have come across those words. >> spend radio will bear the historic argument. listen to c-span radio in washington, d.c. 90.1 and online at c-spanradio.org. >> for each of the commissioners, do you believe that employees of the nrc have experienced intimidation,

hostile or offensive conduct, by the chairman, anything that would be considered to be intimidating, hostile, or offensive by the chairman? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> ladies and gentlemen, that is the definition of harassment. i hope that we can all agree that is why we put it in the statute. >> wednesday, the house government reform and oversight committee heard complaints from four u.s. nuclear regulatory commissioners regarding a hostile working environment. watch this on line at the c-span video library. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now, representative jim himes, democrat from connecticut, serves on the financial services committee, as well as others. welcome. what is the likelihood we will see a functioning government after friday?

guest: in my three years here, we have had the threat time and time again of a shutdown and it never happens. it is usually averted at 2:00 in the morning. host: as far as avenues of how you might get a deal done, can you speculate on that? guest: there is broad agreement that we need to extend the payroll tax cuts, and get unemployment done. it is broad agreement, not unanimity. you have been talking about this on your show. my sense is that this will go until the last minute. my sense is the negotiation will lead to a deal, hopefully this weekend. see congress not see coming back on a short-term c.r.? guest: most people would tell

you we should extend the payroll tax cut. this is something republicans have stood for for a long time, tax cuts. on the house side, they are dragging their feet and putting in things like the pipeline to get the right wingers on board. host: as far as the story from the associated press this morning about the potential dropping of the surtax on millionaires, where are we on that? guest: it is hard to know. the democratic senate proposed that. the house republicans have said -- this has been their message for the last year -- flat out, absolutely not. the interesting thing is, it is the more tea party wing of the republican party driving it. the speaker has to listen to that. i know democrats accused of caving on this issue. at the end of the day, the house majority republicans, for them,

that's a nonstarter. host: to the democrats, as far as a political strategy, is there truth to that? guest: i will tell you how this democrat thinks about it. more and more, it has become apparent that the republicans today stand for one thing and one thing only, which is protecting the financial interests of the very wealthiest people in this country. i represent a very affluent districts. it is not that i ever engage in class warfare or any of that stuff. we have a national project here. it is a brutal national project to get our fiscal house in order. everybody is going to come to the table. the pentagon will be asked to make painful cuts. democrats like me are going to vote for some things that will break our hearts, like reducing the discretionary spending for things like education. if we are going to take that pain, and go into this saying everybody sacrifices, it's morally untenable to say that

the very most fortunate people in this country get a pass. that's not what this country is about. host: jim himes is our guest. if you want to ask him questions about the current issues before congress -- you can send an e-mail to him. also, you can send us a message on twitter. you talked about painful cuts. what about the stories about a potential sequestration? guest: i have been very vocal about the fact -- for congress to say we are going to set up these automatic cuts that kick in if the super committee fails -- and then when the super committee fails, we are not going to take our beating.

talk about a way to send a signal to the world that this institution is not serious. that would be the way to do it. the nice thing about the sequester cuts is that they kicked in one year from now when the bush tax cuts expire. think about that. one year from today, you have the tax cuts expiring, the sequesters kicking in. i would suggest that month, that month of december, that same month you can have real negotiations. that negotiation fails, tough things happen. host: first call. waterbury, connecticut on the line for democrats. dan for representative jim himes. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am from waterbury. obviously, you know where that is. guest: neighbor.

caller: withstood in debt so high, why don't you guys pick a fight over the lot in 2005 making it illegal to claim bankruptcy on private lending banks? that is what is killing your young students right now, education. why don't you pick a fight with republicans on that. thank you. host: -- guest: thank you you raised a really important issue. if you look at student loans, the default rate on student loans today is incredibly high. of course, kids are graduating from college with a tougher time than ever before getting jobs, carrying all this debt. dan, i agree with you. we need to find ways to make it easier for kids who cannot find a job to defer the interest payments until they can find a job. make it easier for people to get

student loans so they can go to school. there are two areas that are debt that americans carry that in a bankruptcy scenario, they cannot alter. student loans and mortgages. a lot of people will tell you the fact you cannot change the principal amount of your mortgage is one of the reasons we are still in a mess in the housing arena. host: joseph ramirez on twitter says, "what is the problem with keystone?" guest: we should have a vibrant debate about the keystone pipeline. i would rather buy oil from canada than from saudi arabia. the fact is, we need oil. i would love to say that next week we are going to be all solar and wind. that's not true. keystone was just thrown into

this must-pass legislation. boehner could not get his guys to sign on, so he just threw them a bunch of bones. keystone pipeline, reducing air quality regulations -- that's not the way to have that debate. this is a good debate. i see this every day in my office. people say they do not want keystone, they do not want nuclear, and they do not want to import oil. in the back of my mind, i'm thinking, "how much do you like the electricity that you like to use?" i'm not like to tell you that keystone is absolutely wrong and off the table. there are serious issues about climate change. i want to have that discussion. i do not want to be told i have to vote on this in 12 hours. host: the president pushed the decision until after next year's elections. guest: that will keep the issue

alive for another year or so. again, let's have that discussion, particularly when it comes to energy. we are going to use energy. we have to be practical in thinking about where it will come from. there's no spot is going to come from that will make us feel good. whether it is saudi arabia or keystone. host: do you share the environmental concerns the president has? guest: i absolutely do. that is one critical factor. i have a very good voting record with the league of conservation voters. i think it is our responsibility as parents to hand our kids a world that is not polluted and destroy. yes. this is a technical problem, right. the united states is darn good at solving technical problems. let's make sure, if we build this, we build a safe pipeline, so we are not in a world where we were in with the deep water

horizon. host: republicans in the house say if you start this project does, you can start debating -- you can start creating jobs. guest: transcanada has basically said there are a couple thousand jobs in building it. that makes sense. there are jobs in building a pipeline. there are 50 or 60 permanent jobs. i'm not quite get in their face and tell them that they're not jobs. do not tell me 20,000 jobs or fantasy numbers. anytime you talk about anything in this town, you got to talk about jobs. that is right. an awful lot of americans without jobs. they are wildly exaggerating the jobs that are going to stay with this pipeline. host: baltimore maryland, republican line. caller: the wealthiest people make good decisions with their money and create jobs. they were not given the money that they have. the earned it.

by taking their money, we are not going to create any more jobs. guest: well, that is partly right. i voted to extend the tax cuts last december. in a situation of economic uncertainty, you did not raise taxes on frankly anybody. hopefully we're not always in a world of economic uncertainty. let's remember the other side of this. the idea that the wealthiest people create the jobs -- they all went to job creation school. why do they create jobs? by the way, it's not just them. it is the pizza place down the street. is the guy who runs a drug store. he's not making $1 million. there are people in their arebuying -- there are people in their stores buying things. it is about the demand as much as it is about giving millionaires more cash flow.

ins the middle class is not the pizza place or in the drug store, i do not care how long you went to job creation school for millionaires. you're not going to create jobs. let's be thoughtful about tax policy. as long as the middle class is flat on its back, people are not going to create jobs. host: another call from baltimore. don on the line for independents, go ahead. caller: i have a comment about the wealth of the millionaires. i think it is a simple compromise. they have to say, "show me where you created x amount of jobs. if not, we are taxing the money you are sitting on." is that not reasonable? guest: we should always look for facts around who is creating jobs and how. we should not be vilifying success. the president is right about this. unfortunately, there's a lot of

rhetoric out there vilifying success. someone is not bad because they made a lot of money. this is my point. as i said before, we have a massive national product to get our fiscal house in order, to get the ballbudget balanced and reduce the debt. do not tell me that we are going to ask people in the city of bridgeport, a poor city that i represent, to go with less heating we're going to make all of these cuts and sacrifices or take a very fortunate group of people and say, you get a pass. the only solution is to tax the wealthiest, that's part of it, but not the only solution. this is a much bigger problem. asking the most fortunate people to come to the table and participate in this difficult

national project is the right thing to do. host: chicago, good morning, karen on the democrats' line 8. caller: good morning. representative times, i have a couple questions. why is it that when the republicans, with an idea, they come out in the group, they stand together? but when the democrats -- when the president put something on the table and when he looks around, you guys are nowhere around in the house and the senate. if you believe you are really democrats, why don't you stand with this president? he cannot run this country by himself. he is only as good as his party, the senate and the representatives. why can't you stand with him?

guest: i have been here three years and i look back in particular when the president first took office, the democrats on capitol hill stood with him to get the dodd-frank bill done. they stood with him to get a bill that would help women get paid the same as men for doing the same work. they stood with him on the economic recovery act. they stood with him on health care reform. many of them did not come back to washington because they stood with the president of a lot of those issues. i am not sure i agree with the premise of your question. it it always seems like the democrats are here. will rogers said that he does not belong to an organized political party, he's a democrat. the democratic party is a very

diverse group of people. you will see black, white, men and women, gay and straight. an incredibly diverse people in the democratic party. there's a lot more diversity on that side and then there is on the republican side. when you have that kind of diversity, it is going to be a little more challenging to get people to line up around any idea. host: 15 more minutes with our guest. michael, republican line, flint, michigan. caller: i have a question for the representative. i was wondering what your credentials are that allow you to sit on this fact finding thing. if you feel your credentials are suitable for what you have to do? guest: ok, i am at a loss because i'm not on any fact- finding commission or committee.

i am an elected member of congress. i sit on the financial services committee. i was elected by a majority of my constituency. i make that point because in an environment of vilification and complaining about the guys i don't agree with on this issue or that issue, it is important to remember the moment in time when congress has a 9% approval rating that everyone who is here got elected by the majority of their constituents. it is tough times. we ought to remember that unlike a lot of places that we see in the news, everybody making decisions on capitol hill was elected by a majority of their constituents. host: our guest is with us until it o'clock 30. you mentioned a hearing on capitol hill for mf global and jon corzine. what are your thoughts on the

managers and procedures in place to attract the money in question? guest: a lot of things about this story are concerning. the fact that a lot of money and customer accounts -- in customer accounts has gone missing. we are looking at a violation of law. we have to see whether that happened. that is a serious issue. there are questions about whether jon corzine jonwho knows a lot of regulators, was talking to the regulators and perhaps try to influence them. that topic of conversation is one that congress should be interested in. we should reflect on what happened, to see whether there's something to be learned. is there some systemic problem we should be thinking about. i want to make a point, we are coming out of an absolute and into catastrophe where bear stearns and lehman brothers went

down and the terrible bailout that was necessary and to rescue huge banks. we are a little sensitive about what it means when a bank goes down, but we need remember a it is not the government's job to prevent businesses from sailing. businessmen will make very bad decisions, as i am sure jon corzine will tell you he did in certain instances. a healthy market economy means we will see banks and fed funds and retailers and pizza parlors failed. that is part of the creative destruction of a capitalist system. we have an interest in making sure people who lose their jobs have the training to get jobs elsewhere, the economy is moving so they can find jobs. we should not believe every time a business goes down, that indicates a faulty system. host: 1:00 today the house financial services subcommittee has been hearing on mf global

and its investigation. that's on c-span3 and c- span.org. what is the top question you have for jon corzine? guest: i want to ask him what he knows about the missing money. this really worries me. if you go to your broker and say here is my $20,000, in the back of your mind you think i may not get that back, we now have a serious threat to our system. that is my main question. host: earlier testimony indicated did not have much knowledge of what happened to the money. are you saying there's new information to prove otherwise? guest: exceeded not know what happened to it, i would like to know why not. he bears responsibility at the end of the day. it may be true that he does not know. the question is why were you not looking at cash balances at the end of the day. why did the system breakdown so that you had no idea what was going on? host: who should be heading the

committee? guest: next in line is congresswoman maxine waters. she is indicated she is interested. i am a big fan of congresswoman waters. i have not thought about it because i know there were other people out there. maybe other people out there. i think she would do a good job. host: pennsylvania, david, democrat. caller: hello, good morning. merry christmas. i want to say a couple facts. 20 300 million as collected $22 million of unemployment. aires.0 million do we have to take to the streets like they did in egypt to get some democracy back in

our country? what do we have to do? listen to the angry americans and you will learn something. guest: thank you. there's not a lot of disagreement out there. let me rephrase that. there is some partisan disagreement over what you just said. but it's hard to look at our country today and look at where the income is concentrated, who owns the well, who pays the taxes, and say that there's not something fair. they pay no taxes, some of them. the republicans turn around and say half of the american people are paying no taxes. half of the american people are paying no federal income tax because they don't make enough money to qualify. they are paying sales tax, property tax, all kinds of other taxes. but they don't make enough money to pay federal income tax. that is what we have to fix.

again, it is not so much about vilifying people at the top. that is a mistake. some of them deserved vilifying if it breaks the law. the protest to be, how do we make it so more people can climb that ladder. how do we get our public education system in order so every kid has a crack at being a millionaire. how do we fix the tax code so that the middle class is not paying a higher tax rates than some very wealthy people? that is where we need to focus. restoring a sense of fairness. restoring a tax code and a public education system and everything else that allows our middle class to climb the ladder. host: nottingham, maryland, donna on the republican line. caller: i think congress should be required to listen to c-span so they can hear the people. also, i have a comment on unemployment. we have such high unemployment.

without high unemployment we would not have the voluntary military that we have. i think unemployment will also let the military gets more skilled and educated volunteers. unfortunately, usually that will be the children of the poor. they will be defending the written inof the and the middle east, which will create further class warfare. also, for job creation, the majority of people's lives become no better and we will have to build more prisons, which will help the construction business. guest: well, , i disagree with one thing you said. you said that the all-volunteer

force relies on a bad economy. in the 1990's when our unemployment was very low and the economy was growing, we had an all-volunteer army that was as good as the one we have today. but you do make a point that we as americans ought to think about. if you look at who is in the military, it is not the sons and daughters of the wealthiest people. it's not the sundance daughters of many senators or congressman -- it is not the sons and daughters. it is kids who don't feel they have a lot of other options. at some level that is a good thing. people do get trained to be electricians, truck drivers, logistics experts. our military is a wonderful way for people to climb the ladder. what we should not feel good about the fact that if you look at the military from start to finish, it tends to be the people who have not benefited most from our society. the folks that have benefited

most are underrepresented in our military. that is something we should think about. host: road scholar, previously worked at goldman sachs, started entry-level and move up to vice president in 12 years. commissioner of the housing authority. when it comes to your experience on wall street, what do you make of things today? to get yourhard mind around what occupy wall street says today. you have people that are anti- nuclear and folks about the federal reserve. the idea that a lot of people feel like the system is not set up to help them, but maybe it is even rigged against them, that idea,, i think, is right. blowback to those things that for generations allowed americans to climb the ladder. public schools.

if everybody went to a decent public school two the generations ago. you used to be able to get a middle-class manufacturing jobs in the 1940's. the tax code, the concentration of wealth. it is hard to look at the deterioration of those things and not say this country has eroded the american dream. the core message of occupy wall street is things are not quite fair anymore. it's hard to dispute that. even if you do disputes that, so many people making that point, it is up to guys like me to say there's a lot of people saying this, we have to think about this. even if we can make fun of people living in tents downtown, let's listen to the message, because there's something to it. host: what about the message charging the financial-services industry? guest: the financial-services industry in the late 2000's did some incredibly irresponsible things and they got bailed out

by every taxpayer in the country helping. that is a terrible thing. market economies are not supposed to require government bailouts. we could have a discussion about whether the bailout saved the day. the people who say we never should have done the bailout, and then describes a meal world where there's no money in atm machines and where no company can make a payroll. that's a longer discussion. the point is, wall street and the banks, some of them bear a lot of blame, but there's a lot of blame to go-around. fannie mae, freddie mac, failure of the regulators. congress and both parties saying we should get more and more people in homeownership. people always accuse barney frank of making that point. george w. bush was the head of the honor society. both parties have said we should get people owner own homes. this institution has way too much of that. host: the chronicle, a democrat.

veronica, a democrat. caller: i would like to see the democratic party bringing out what the average american citizen is going through today. our county taxes are being raised, state taxes being raised, school taxes raised, homeowners' insurance policies raised. there are families --i am not talking about just homeless people. there are homeless families out in the streets. children are not eating. pantry's do not have food. i believe democrats should be talking more about this. and how can the right wing call familylves for fou

when they don't believe in healthcare or food stamps or helping anyone? it is absolutely horrifying. it is scary. i with the democrats would be talking more about the average person. you have a lot of support from a lot of people that are waiting to hear people talk about that. host: we will let our guests respond. guest: she makes a very important point which is the middle class and below middle- class, we have seen increasing numbers of americans living in poverty. she's right. how do we feel about that as a country that over time more and more of our fellow citizens are living in poverty? we should be saying how do we? fix we the -- we should be saying, how do

we fix that? the answer is good schools, good education. a single mom with three children. she may be working three jobs and does not have the time to sit down every night and read to the children. what does she do with the young kids when she goes off to the job? what are we doing about day care so that she can work and make money to feed the kids? these are the things that we should be thinking a lot more about than we do. host: this an effort to cut unemployment insurance to 59 weeks. guest: historically, in times of economic downturn this country has extended unemployment long enough to make a difference for a lot of people who otherwise would have a hard time putting food on the table. if you looked at the numbers last month, the 200,000 private- sector jobs added. nothing to write home about. until we start seeing 400,000 jobs added or 500,000 jobs, and

still receive 13.5 million americans out getting a job, it's things that keep people from not going hungry, there's nothing magic about the numbers. the question is how do we feel about letting our fellow citizens go hungry, kids going to bed at night without any food and beer belly? that's what we should think determine how many weeks of unemployment. host: next on our independent line. caller: good morning. what worries me very much is the united states, this administration or the previous administration, they are borrowing money from the next generation and spending it right now. what worries me the most is i came to this country 24 years ago. i got a student loan.

i did not pay my student loan because there was no jobs during that time. my children are in high school and elementary school. there's no hope for them. if you are learning in america, the hope is gone because we are playing politics. i have a house. have.t live beyond what i the government should think like an ordinary person. if you don't have money, don't spend it. don't borrow from the future. there's no guarantee that our children will pay this money. the united states is going into the worst direction, which is disturbing, because we are living beyond our means. we are spending and taking money from our grandchildren. host: thank youcaller. gue-- caller.

guest: you make a critical point. as a people, through our representative institutions, we decided to fight two very expensive wars in afghanistan and iraq, between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. we added a drug benefit to the medicare program, but it is not free. we decided in the face of increased spending cannot raise taxes to pay for it, but to lower taxes. if a series of decisions which may have felt good to each person individually, but it does what your household idea is what would happen if we decided to buy a lot more stuff and quit our jobs and did not have a paycheck, so now we are paying the price. we will be looking at the simpson-bowles proposal, like the sequesters we spoke about this morning, to get this

country back on a sustainable path. none of this stuff is fun to talk about. you have to do two things. either cut spending -- a lot of people are saying to cut spending, but when you talk to them if they want you to cut the other guys spending. or you can raise taxes. you can bring in more revenue or spend less money. nobody likes to talk about any of that, but we have to. we will be doing that the next couple years. while we do that, we have to be careful. the gentleman said that we don't fail to invest in those things that are going to lead to prosperity down the road. the education of our children, bridges and railways and airports that allow us to move people and products. we cannot do this in a way that we stop putting in place the kind of inheritance that we all got that allows this economy to make the american dream real. >> dimension to the two wars. secretary of defense leon panetta participated in closing ceremonies in iraq.

your thoughts on the effort in iraq, the closing? guest: thank goodness. we never should begin in iraq. we went there under false pretenses and spent and on got the amount of money and lost 4500 men and women in uniform in a place where i don't think we should and been. we are out and that's a good thing. oakley that will help -- hopefully, that'll help. now in afghanistan we are spending more money and seeing human losses beginning to rival those in iraq. i have been to afghanistan. i have spoken to our men and women in uniform. we are not going to fix afghanistan. if we try, we will pour more hundreds of billions of dollars and more young lives into a region where four thousands of years they've been in hospital to foreigners. now we need to and get our people out of a canister and and

start building this country. host: the secretariats as there have been efforts made especially because of the u.s. presence. -- the secretary has said. guest: the u.s. helps bring about a negotiation. it would be nice to whisper taliban are going away, but they are not. they are being sponsored by the middle east. we make it plain that we are on our way out, is the answer. pakistan has nuclear weapons and an unstable government and all sorts of problems. we have an interest in the region. let's maintain a presence, because we want to bid to influence events, but let's get out of the business of trying to build afghanistan by bringing them to the table and saying this is your country, have a

meeting of your own and figure things out. it's not our job. host: republican line, floyd, butler, tennessee. and have am in my 70's been in the cuban blockade and vietnam and have poured concrete all my life since 1954. i believe in the trickle-down. i am an eisenhower republican. i have voted democrat in the last 30 years a couple times. but these republicans today are -- i am a car-carrying republican. there's no republicans out there ere are no democrats. -- i am a card-carrying republican. you dropped wages in half in 1972. i believed in trickle-down. i believe in giving a man an

honest day's pay. he used to make money. since 1973 you have brought it down to a third-world nation. this is true. we don't make any money. there is no money out here. we cannot pay taxes because we have no money. our wages or cut in half in 1973. host: banks. -- thanks. guest: i'm not sure what he's referring to from 1973, but thank you for your service. as someone who served this country, i hope that the economists can do things in the coming years to restore your optimism about this country. i am optimistic about this country. we have the most powerful manufacturing economy in the world. we forget that because we have seen so much manufacturing leave our shores. we are still the largest

manufacturer on the planet and we are starting new businesses. google did not exist 10 years ago. so there's reason to be hopeful and proud. where i think we might agree with mr. butler in leading up to 1973 everybody got a bite of the apple. you could pour cement. everybody got a bite of the apple. today let's look at google. they are hiring people with engineering degrees. if you grew up without a degree, maybe the jobs are not out there. we come back to doing what we need to do, whether through education, the tax code, investing in infrastructure, to make sure everyone in our country has access to the american dream as they did a generation ago. host: louisiana, sandra, democrat line. caller: good morning. a couple comments.

the previous caller was speaking about democrats' standing with president obama. she was referring to when he stands up at the press conferences. we do see the republicans standing in concert with the speaker or with eric cantor or whomever. but when the president is speaking, there's no one standing there. we know you have voted along with him on the floor on several issues, but it is this united stance during the press conferences when he is standing alone. the other comment i have is i don't believe i pipeline should of been added on to the payroll tax cut. separate.dn't separat and if they wanted jobs, they should have passed what the president proposed for police

and firefighters, and infrastructure. we could have had jobs. mitch mcconnell makes it his priority to get rid of the president, but it should be to get those people employed. guest: you made some important points, sandra. i agree with you on the pipeline. we should have a debate about the pipeline. it has to be an honest debate about where we get our energy and what the implications are. it should not a been added to this bill. so we don't get to have the debate. you made reference to the president's jobs act. here's something that we could do right now the president called for that i believe is very important, which is let's set aside the pipeline, let's have that debate. let's do the work. don't lie to me and tell me its 20,000 jobs or whatever. but what about the rest of our infrastructure?

bridges are falling down and people waste hours every single day on the highways. i fly to kennedy airport every once in awhile and it is an embarrassment. let's acknowledge we will fix that stuff. we will invest because it makes sense to do that for the future of our economy and lead to it now. we have electricians, carpenters, operating engineers desperate for work. we know that we will spend the money. we need railways and highways. this is what i would say to the republican majority in the house, we know that we will spend the money, so why not spend it now when we could put a lot of people back to work? we could help to revive this economy. there is snow good counter argument to making the investment in the railways and roadways now. host: representative jim hines, a democrat from connecticut, thanks for your time. in our last segment and an

eclectic team will look at the unemployment in the u.s. and underemployed. a republican from louisiana, a member of the pope energy and commerce -- a member of the energy and commerce committee. >> defense secretary leon panetta said u.s. troops in iraq can "to leave with great pride and that no words, no ceremony can provide full tribute to the sacrifices that have brought this day to pass." he participated in a ceremony officially bringing the war to a close. a white house release says of the ceremony that "the flag is around not to be flown again." this marks the end of the war in iraq, a book and to the invasion of 2003. on this day the mission is over , it says. also commenting on iraq this morning, the armed services committee ranking member john

mccain. speaking earlier, the arizona republican says the u.s. could lose its gains in iraq because no troops are staying behind. he went on to accuse president obama of ignoring the advice of military leaders for in order to keep a campaign promise to withdraw all u.s. troops. he said the lack of u.s. presence will embolden iran and the taliban in afghanistan. the house passed a $662 billion defense bill after the white house dropped a veto threat over provisions on handling terrorists suspects. the bill would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, the afghan war, and national security programs in the energy department. the senate takes up the measure today. lives and it covered at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the past few months on c-span we have examined the political lives of the contenders. 14 men who vied for the office

of president but lost and had a lasting impact on american politics. friday we will speak with a history professor and a politics editor and a presidential historian to see what they learned from the series. friday's 8:00 p.m. eastern. to what additional video and review the episodes, visit c- span.org. >> this weekend on c-span 2, members of congress profits from insider trading is the topic, that they used political influence for financial gain. saturday at 7:00 p.m. and sunday at 11:00 p.m. eastern. and a best-selling biography on steve jobs. that is saturday night at 8:00 and send it 10:00. and an argument that keep travel and the internet make it easier for immigrants to stay in touch with their home countries and the connection and fosters innovation and economic growth

worldwide, saturday evening at 10:00 eastern and sunday and 9:00 eastern and pacific. watch "book tv every weekend on c-span and c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. host: representatives bill cassidy, republican from louisiana joins us. there is a discussion dealing with something in medicare called a doc fix. what is being proposed by democrats and republicans? guest: medicare is the federal program that pays for health care for those over 65 and the disabled. like almost every other government health care program, typically costs outstrips income. in 1997 in an effort to control costs, congress put into law something called the sustained growth rate. what this said was we are going to medicare will only spend a certain amount on health care

services for the elderly every year. if i any one year the program spends more than we predict, next year the program will be cut by the same amount. the problem is if you pay physicians below their cost as being a medicare patient, they can no longer afford to see a medicare patient. every year when there was an overrun, there was a decrease, but congress always held the program steady. every year there's a decrease of, every year congress holds its steady. after 1997, we have a $20 billion deficits between where the serial cuts would a brought us and where congress has decided we would pay. that is being unfunded accrued liability in what the medicare needs. to pay needs host: you are a

doctor by trade. guest: i've worked in a hospital for the uninsured. monday morning, i will be seeing patients in that and rouge, louisiana. -- baton rouge. my wife is in general practice with nurses that she must pay, rent, utilities. she has a certain fixed expense that she must meet. payor that does not pay at least water over it is, as to limit the number of patients that receives from that particular they apayor. in almost every state, medicaid pays a low cost. primary care providers are harder to find for medicare

payers because medicare pays so poorly. what republicans have attempted to do in the plan is give a two- year package where positions are held stable. they can make a business plan and could then see more medicare patients because they know for the next two years medicare will at least pay the base. as they do that, congress begins to work on a permanent solutions to this problem. host: what is the prominent solution? guest: in the legislation there is important language that says gao, cms, all come back with your plans for us to look at to see what would be a prominent solution. i have my own ideas, but i do is think there will have to be a vetting of for those possibilities are, then pick the best possibility. host: what is your idea?

guest: if you look at places where patients are better care for at lower cost, they typically involve around its primary care model, where the primary care physician brings herself with the patient so well that the knowledge of the american position is almost transferred to the patient as they make better decisions. there's a group out of washington state where everyone pays $50 a month and the primary care physicians take care of validation needs for those people. better health care at lower cost. in san antonio there's a group, 100,000 covered lives. they have better outcomes at a lower cost. primary-care physicians take on patients and act as their advocate as they interact with the rest of the health-care system. i think that model is where we care-o go, the primary

centered model. host: we would like to hear from you on your respective phone lines. you can also send us a tweet. the senators and representatives have a plan when it comes to medicare. part of it deals with the issue of privatization. they say americans over the age of 55 currently racino change to the medicare system. future retirees started in 2020 to --- what are your initial thoughts? guest: fantastic. this is what republicans have already proposed. i should not say republicans proposed this. it was first proposed by

democratic senator from louisiana in a bipartisan commission established by president clinton. he still says this concept is about the only way by which we can save medicare. in case folks don't know, the people that when medicare say it will be bankrupt by 2024. the program people have paid into their whole life will be financially exhausted. the president's bipartisan commission on the debt said that what is driving our indebtedness right now our health care entitlements, medicare and medicaid principle. what paul ryan first came up with that republicans have endorsed and what a liberal democrat from oregon has now endorsed is a plant in which if you are already on medicare or within 10 years of retirement, now 55, nothing changes for the

program you have known. if you are like me, 54 and below, it changes the premium support, where you would pick the insurance company that you like and the government will send the premium to that company. if you are poor, the government continues to pay for everything. if you are warren buffett, you finally get to pay the extra amount you think you should pay. if you are middle-class, you will have a sweet spot in between. if you pick something that is frugal, you pay less out of pocket. this plan can not only preserve and strengthen medicare for those on its or those about to be in, but it will also preserve it and strengthen its for people like me who have 11 more years to enter it. right now we don't have a sustainable program 11 years from now. right now liberal democrat agrees with republicans that this is the way to go. host: west virginia, democrat

line. caller: good morning. i have one comment before i talk about the medicare problem. on the pipeline, they had a of the that the ceo's pipeline said they would not guarantee that all the products would be used in the united states only, because they ship diesel overseas. that's why we don't need the pipeline if they say they're going to send overseas. the other one about the medicare, i will be 65 next month. i will start my medicare. you talk about privatization, is already private, because the vantage program is a private insurance company that you purchase insurance through them or you can get the supplement.

it is also private, because mine is united health insurance, which they turned me down five times because i have pre- existing conditions from before that. guest: i would like to talk about the pipeline and 20,000 jobs that would increase. but let's talk about medicare. although you are contracting with united health plans, it is the federal government that is paying the principal amount of that premium. under it the ryan plan, if you are on medicare, an insurance company would not be allowed to turn you down based on pre- existing conditions, based on any other factors. if they offer a product and that's in the geographical area where you live, you would have to be put to get that at the same premium as everybody else your age. if you are older, medicare would

pay more to the insurance company and offset the increased cost as we all experience as we age. you are concerned about the existing conditions. that is addressed under the republican plan. host: next call, west virginia, janet, republican line. caller: yes, in reference to the payroll tax break that obama wants to give us, does he have to borrow that from social security? then he would have to borrow money to put it back in there from china and which will cost us more interest, a lot more. that is one pink. as far as the pipeline, what does the pipeline have to do with infrastructure? the pipeline will not cost us anything, but it will create jobs. host: our previous question, the amount of jobs that some

republicans say the pipeline will create. guest: these are third-party that say it will create 20,000 jobs. the jobs that it creates will be good wages with good benefits. that's why people like pipefitters and boilermakers are for it. unions are for it because they understand these are good jobs with good wages. working-class americans having jobs with good benefits here. i agree with janet. the way we are paying for tax cuts, one of the ways we are paying for it is freezing the pay of congressman for the next three years. and will only be a small amount relative to the amount needed, but there will be a general freeze for federal employees if if you are newly hired. you will have to spend more for your retirement program if you are newly hired federal.

similar if you are congresswoman or congressmen. on the other hand, social security, the amount that is not paid in will be replaced from other sources and will be paid for under the republican plan. whether the president signs it, we don't know. given the payroll tax cuts, extends unemployment insurance while putting the needed reforms. it endorses the keystone pipeline. it does not make the president do it, but it makes the president make a decision about it. host: what is the takeaway on the payroll tax cut that the surtax on millionaires might be dropped as a proposal? guest: that is on the senate side. all i can say if the question is redistribution of wealth, then maybe you want to take money from the billionaires'. the question is how do we create

economic prosperity? republicans say you should not tax the people creating jobs. right now if our question is how do we create more jobs, you don't want to go to a small businesswoman filing under subchapter f, therefore looks like higher income, then take your money that she would use to create jobs and then give it to the president to give to companies like solyndra. i would rather give it to that business, and so the worker can pay federal taxes and not give it to the president to give. host: since help care is not within the enumerated powers of congress, -- constitutionala attorney, but there is case law that supports this. medicare and medicaid or put into place in 1955. for the last 50 something years it has been seen as something

which the federal government is involved with spirit theoretically, medicare is a program in which people pay in and receive only those benefits for which they paid. in reality, previous congresses have promised far more than people have paid, which brings us to the problem we have today. more outgoing, less in coming. i cannot get into the constitutional argument. 56 years of case law established it is in place for the for thet' to be -- program to be. caller: i would like to chat about where the money goes. i served in vietnam. i think you guys used to pay us to wonder dollars a month whether we needed it or not. now we are hiring mercenaries over there at $150,000 a year. at the same time the federal payroll has become a cancerous entity.

i don't know how this thing can go on. you guys are destroying the history of mankind. you don't have a clue any of this is going on. the cuts don't add up to anything. i can think of 15 federal agencies that the american people would be far better off without. we would have a little bit of our freedom back. industry would be able to prosper again. it has become almost impossible to hire an american citizen with taxes and regulations the way they are. the national chamber of commerce spends so much money trying to get another 35 million illegal aliens in this country. they almost refused to hire american citizens. guest: first, i agree with you. the federal government is too big. on the other hand, you don't change the course of a ship of

state in the short amount of time. i will say that over the last two years republicans have decreased the amount of discretionary spending two years in a row. this year discretionary spending will be $90 billion less than last year. last year was less than the year before. there has been tremendous progress. once think you're doing to pay for the payroll tax cut is we are freezing federal employees pay, requiring more patent for retirement programs. one of the complaints is that will shrink the federal workforce. you and i see that as a good thing, bill. i agree with you. federal government has become too large. if for two straight years we have decreased discretionary spending, why are still concerned about? the about according to the president's bipartisan commission, the

things driving the deficit is entitlements, social security, medicare, medicaid, and the interests in the federal government. if we do nothing, by the end of the decade, those four things will consume the entirety of our federal taxes. that shows the need for reform. i agree with you that there needs to be smaller government, that we need to control spending. the fact that we have cut discretionary spending two years in a row and still have a looming problem shows the importance of the medicare issue. how do we strengthen and preserve medicare so it is still there and at the same time don't allow entitlement to bankrupt our country? it is a tough situation. host: the caller brought up military issues. your thoughts on the u.s. officially ending its mission in iraq today? guest: it had to come to an. end at. had to come to an end

at some point. history will give us the answer. hopefully the iraqis are ready. host: republican line, kevin. caller: nice to talk to you. prior to becoming a politician, you and your spouse were physicians. guest: >> yes, and i still am a physician and i still see patients. caller: how can do both? guest: i go to a public hospital for the uninsured. i am a teacher-antics and passing on knowledge so the younger generations of physicians are better prepared. host: what is your question, caller? caller: my father was an

orthopedic and trauma surgeon. i am 57. everybody wanted a specialist. he used to prepare hips with new hardware. the only people that break hips unless you deal with football players are people on medicare. dad did those for $450. i cannot speak for the additional expenses for the hospitals. and everything hospitals i don't think you can get a replacement for $850 in 2011. they probably want $20,000 now. that is an outrage. guest: it clearly is an exploding cost of medicine. the goals of health care reform are threefold.

to provide access to as many people as possible, quality of care at an affordable price. what kevin from tampa mentioned is that the affordable price is what is hurting us. of these three variables, what the president's health-care plan did was emphasized access, but did very little about cost. my experience, working in a hospital for the uninsured, is that if cost is not controlled, then you cannot maintain access. eventually, you have to control cost. if what happens is lines become longer or there's rationing or there is some way in which no longer that which the person previously had access to, they no longer have access. i think kevin makes a good point. that's why republicans and taken a different approach. if you control costs, you expand access. there is empirical data supporting that. if you'll get people with a health savings account for

catastrophic events, the savings is much more than a traditional policy. it is a lower-cost policy. in 2007, kaiser family foundation did a study, 50% of the people have a family income of $50,000 or less and about 90% of -- have a family income of $70,000 or less. by lowering costs, they are able to afford insurance. by lowering costs, those previously uninsured now have access to health insurance. people with a health savings account use preventive services as frequently as those do with traditional insurance. not only do you have access, but

you are using the quality care that we wish you to have. the republican paradigm, lower the costs and expand access to quality care a, that works. 's president's paradigm, to expand access and lower costs, has not worked. massachusetts has attempted that and its health care costs are exploding. host: ohio, democrat line, martin. caller: i have a big problem here. i tried to get medicare and they told me i had to get a 5% penalty because my wife got laid off and could not afford to pay $1,700 per month cobra fee, which i could maybe afford, but the republicans will not do anything about our student loans.

i am thinks asunder dollars a month for my daughter student loans. host: thanks. guest: if you are 65 or disabled, you qualify for medicare. i don't know the particular circumstances of your wife's illness. as regard to your daughter student loan, i think we could have a national debate over whether people are being well- served by taking on that debt, sometimes getting degrees if they don't offer them better employment. i don't think that is a republican issue. that is a societal issue and in some cases someone has made poor choices. host: reaction to the numbers from the labor department. guest: we certainly hope we are entering a recovery.

what is concerning is what kind of jobs are these? the previous congressman hines was here earlier. if you look at people unemployed now, it is principally blue- collar workers, principally men. in areas where they have been employed was manufacturing, construction, mining. the reason why democrats and republicans and labor unions would like to see the keystone pipeline built, it is canadian oil and there will be american workers building a pipeline. that is constructive. and using manufactured steel to bring it down to a petrochemical plant that will have manufacturers to refine that product, the oil.

men are this appropriately and employed in manufacturing and mining. this project facilitates employment in those areas. good jobs, good wages, benefits. if this is why the labor unions are on board for this. dow is looking into an expanding petrochemical plants that will inevitably hire more workers to do manufacturing. if we want to pretend google will be the jobs of the future for blue-collar mworkers, that is a myth. people have been getting good jobs traditionally in mining, construction, and manufacturing, which does not require a government stimulus. those workers would pay government taxes. that is better for our tax base. solyndra was not a great

project. host: the president will make the announcement from the labor department around noon. ohio, good morning to the independent caller. caller: governor kasich -- host: keep going, caller, keep going. caller: they want to cut off workers in hospitals and regulate their own a staffing. guest: i don't know the state law in ohio. in some states like california, there are a state laws that regulate how many nurses have to be on the floor could the hospital cannot say let's take one a nurse from this floor

and move him to another weather are not as many patients but they are acutely ill. they don't have that latitude under state law. it certainly tends to drive up costs. i say in general i trust health- care workers more than i trust legislators. host: on our republicans' line, north carolina. caller: i would like to address the fact that i believe bill clinton did a great disservice to the united states when he opened up trade with china. the trade with china at is what has destroyed our nation. we don't really make anything anymore. people are out of work. it addresses all these issues. there is no more money going into medicare because there is so many people out of work. host: trade issues. guest: let's relate that back.

the reason i like domestic oil and gas production is because it is domestic. by definition you cannot ship that job overseas. it is not a relatively low- paying service jobs without benefits. is typically a well-paid job with good benefits. an oil rig in the gulf of mexico employs about 3000 people. these are not, again, ph.d.'s with solar degrees, solar engineering. these are good people, hardworking people, who are able to afford a home and car, etc., and have good benefits. as you say, with those good wages and benefits, not only are they not on public assistance, but they end up paying taxes. it benefits the family, athe economy , the tax base, and is domestic. one more reason why our domestic oil and gas industry are important things to emphasize.

host: our next call is from oklahoma. bill on the democrats' line. caller: i do agree with the pipeline bill, but let's carry it a little bit further and see if they can't run a check on social security numbers and make sure they are legal. the other part of it is, knee surgery costs $55,000 this year. the one guy that talked about that. the other thing, if your wife is a doctor and you are a doctor, what amount of the people going to hospitals and to the emergency rooms that are illegal -- those that had turned into the government? -- does that get turned into the government? guest: regarding the pipeline,

it is largely union workers, so i don't like it will be illegals -- don't think it will be illegals g one of the things about the pipeline and the reason the unions are all in for a is because it is their workers. as far as folks who come to the emergency room who are illegal, my understanding is that if you are pregnant, medicaid will pay for the delivery and the child, once born here, is automatically a citizen. we can argue about the rightness of that, but i am told that relates to the 14th amendment. if somebody who is an illegal citizen comes to the emergency room and has a sprained ankle and gets sick, typically they don't pay anything. they will walk on the bill even with a sprained ankle, so i am told. i have not looked at the books of a hospital.

this is what i am told. host: there is a viewer on twitter about medicare advantage. guest: the people on medicare advantage are incredibly satisfied with that, say in has not failed, that it has given them extra benefits that they have found incredibly valuable. come to my town hall meetings, and you will hear a lot of folks raising medicare and manage. that said, you could argue that the cost structure of it is too high, and that is a fair debate. the question is, can you keep the positive things about medicare advantage while decreasing the costliness of it? i think that is a good argument to have, and hopefully we will be able to do so. host: massachusetts. kurt, independent line.

caller: i am a former nurse, worked in the field, retired in injured. as far as jobs go with the pipeline, if you are all for this service jobs, a new union jobs will be created with the pipeline, then why don't you fund infrastructure? the country announced the roads, so they should be financed in fixed-rate but i am off track. if you want to 6fixed the medicare system and the rising prices, take profit out of medicine. i am not saying the money you are paid for doing services or your wife is paid for doing services. i am speaking of people who have no hand in the medical pie at all except they are making billions of profits, calling it a insurance, what have you, and are more concerned with their profit then at they are with patients. host: we will leave it there, caller. thanks.

guest: republicans and to support infrastructure spending, for example, will leave that aside. but that is why i'd like i was like, what i was telling pedro earlier, the primary care model. the primary care physician is able to have, in partnership, making decisions that are good for the patient's health but also good for the pocketbook. in my experience, when you give the patient the power, the patient almost always makes the right decision. sometimes you just have to increase her knowledge base. that is where linking the primary care physician with the patient is a very positive thing. there are models that do exactly what you hope to do, which is to squeeze out waste while preserving that which is good. host: woodbridge, virginia.

charles on the republican line for bill cassidy, republican of louisiana. caller: 3 points real quick. i am a small business owner in the u.s. i understand the most of the stuff is going to be temporary work, not going to have a lot of employment once the thing is slowing. i will not dispute the amount of people who'll be hired for this thing, but it does not seem that the risk is worth the reward. business and all that, but the vast majority of the oil will go offshore. i am sick and tired are of republicans saying that this will get us off the dependence of foreign oil read this going offshore. it is going to europe and south america. the second thing as china and free-trade agreements. i don't know why republicans are so hooked on a free-trade agreements. there is not one of free trade agreement that works. if you take our country that we

have a positive trade balance with, it is because they have lost jobs to china as well. you guys other problems because you are starting this problem. the last thing is the tax deduction. i don't mind as a small-business owner you taking away some of the tax deductions i do have a problem when i put my house and name and everything on the line to start a business that i have to pay more taxes versus somebody who does not do this. guest: a couple things. i am so amused when people say that it jobs of building the pipeline are temporary. people who want infrastructure -- you don't build a bridge forever. you build it until it is complete. the pipeline from canada to the gulf of mexico will not be billed in a month. that employment will take place over several years, and it will not be just the people taking the pipe and laying it in, say, kansas, but also people making this deal up, and it will create jobs not just where the pipeline he -- the people making te

steel, and it will create jobs not just for the pipeline is, but permanent jobs. what you want is a serial said of construction jobs, and not only are you building the steel, you are building up plant. secondly, because of the domestic oil and gas production, the united states has decrease the amount it has imported from opec nations from 66% of what it uses down to 49%, 44%. that is amazing. to say that this is going to go offshore -- no offense, charles, but i don't know what you base that on. most of this is going to be used domestically, because we have the largest market, and because there is a great need for it. ideally, instead of the spending of 44% of our oil

dollar at opec, we will decrease that to 35%. won't that be wonderful? we will be sending money to countries that he s, -- we won't be sending money to countries .hat hate us g as regards the free trade with china, canada has free trade with china, and if the president vetoes the pipeline, the canadians have said that what they may do is build one to the pacific coast and ship it to china. we will lose 1 million barrels a day, there will be more like a car been released into the air -- more life cycle car been released into the air, and we will lose the benefit reducing dependence on opec. as far as i'm concerned it is a no-brainer, but apparently the president has priorities other than jobs for blue-collar workers. host: john in kansas, missouri. caller: you keep talking about

how the cost of medicare and medicaid just keeps rising and rising. right now is about 17% of gdp. at what point are you republicans going to give up? when it hits 35%? 40%? and realize that the private sector, who charges the government for all of these medicare and medicaid services, is going to continue to jack their prices until nobody will be able to four hospitals except the 1%. -- to afford hospitals except a 1%. guest: i am not quite sure where you are going with that. we spend more money on medicaid than medicare. traditionally, medicaid has been its republic providers. if you say we want to socialize the entire health care infrastructure, i can tell you that the soviet union -- i just say that because it was a completely socialized system --

had a terrible health care system with terrible outcomes. if you look at england, and lynn has a private market -- england has a private market, which is doing very well, thank you, and the public system is not doing as well. i agree that there is waste that must be squeezed out. on the other hand, i don't have your fate in the federal government or any government to run public health care well- pa. the way it has been managed by the state government over the last 30 or 40 years has made our intense effort to do our job that much harder and our patients with blogger lines in which they must wait. -- longer lines in which they must wait trad. host: "the new york times" --

guest: that is going to drive up costs. seiu has been trying to unionize home care workers for some time. this is a political sop to people who he needs their support for election w. host: independent line. caller: you get the last word on everything and the people on the phone don't get to respond to your lives. host: you are on the phone right now, go ahead. caller: it should be called the sand pipeline because that pipeline is full of sand. it will deteriorate the pipes. that oil cannot be used in the united states because of epa standards. you can lie about that all you want to, but that is a fact. one thing you folks could do to

cut some of our dependence on china money is maybe you guys -- why does it cost $100,000 a year to maintain a barbershop for you guys? i know for a fact you are a multimillionaire. guest: i wish i was a multimillion. i pay for my own hair cuts. my borrower is back -- barber is back in baton rouge. the reason they are doing this in the gulf of mexico is the plans out their use high sulphur crude. it is called oil tar, and they have the flexibility to change it to something that epa will allow for use in the united states. this is not as toxic as that which is in venezuela. it is oil sand and difficult to

manufacture, and that is why they want to ship it all the way to the gulf coast. that is why all the jobs are created, and none of that is a lie. host: representative bill cassidy, thank you for your time. guest: thank you, pedro. host: we will look at the unemployed and underemployed is a new survey from the kaiser foundation and national public radio. marilyn geewax is there national correspondent. >> 9:16 a.m. eastern. new jobless numbers showed the number people applying for benefits has dropped to the lowest level since may 2008. the obama administration is looking to extend minimum wage and overtime protections to cover home health-care workers, a move they said would boost the been standards for 2 million domestic employees. it could also mean higher costs for the elderly and disabled.

labor secretary hilda solis is expected to make the announcement at the white house. living costs are rising. the latest census data shows nearly one in two americans have fallen into poverty. -- one in nearly 2 million americans have fallen into poverty. the number of homes in foreclosure and scheduled to be auctioned has hit a high last month. there is a pullback in foreclosures by lenders and mortgage services. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> sometimes i think it would be best for government to just stay completely out of the sports. a lot of times when congress gets involved, hearings are basically television shows, designed to give the congressman and women involved exposure. >> author and sports commentator

john feinstein on the intersection of sports and government. >> sports is a multi-multi- billion-dollar business in the country. it has a huge impact on fans, universities, higher education. there are so many different ways sports affects our lives. many stadiums that exist are built with government funds. there are also times that i think that the federal government should be more involved. >> john feinstein's new book is called "one on one," and you can watch the rest with the interview sunday on "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: we wallop, marilyn geewax national public radio. can you -- we welcome marilyn geewax national public radio.

guest: weekly numbers can be pretty volatile, but this is a good number. anything below 400,000 is pretty good. it means that the job market is picking up. it is the best number we have seen in a long time, and the trend line has been good. that certainly does not mean -we are out of the huge hole we have dug with unemployment, but it is a good number. host: more jobs are being traded and the circumstances with the economy -- guest: it looks like a certain amount of -- we have stopped the big job losses and we're starting to gain some jobs. the trend is good, the hole is very, very deep. this is the kind of number you are hoping to dig your way out. host: your organization and the kaiser family foundation put out a survey on the unemployed and the underemployed. what was the purpose? guest: we wanted to get a

profile of who are the long-term unemployed. the way we define it is people who have been out of work for more than a year, and we also look at underemployed people. the big focus is who are the people who are jobless or a very long period of time. if i could, pedro, there are three big chunks of the findings i would like to share with folks. who are these people? disproportionately, the long- term unemployed are people who are relatively poorly educated. high school or less. when you look at those people in the full-time work force, they are about 1/3 of all full-time work force, but half of the people unemployed over a long time. that is a disadvantage. the other point is that they can it to be older. workers over 55 are only 13% of the full-time work force. they are about 25% of the long- term unemployed. you are looking at older workers, and also african- americans. about 10% of the full-time work

force, almost 30% of the people who are long-term unemployed. it is disproportionately older, minority, a lesser educated. host: one of the things you found is that for those who are unemployed, they earned less than $30,000 a year at their last place of employment. guest: that was the other thing we got from the survey, the depth of the suffering. people in the long-term unemployed category -- the typical person was making $30,000 or less when they were working. you don't have a huge amount of savings. and after a year you have pretty much run it through your savings. we ask people how are you getting by trade the majority said they had to borrow from friends and family. nearly half of them were struggling just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. about 1/3 said they changed living arrangements. if they had to move in with relatives.

when we ask how you are doing, the words that come up are "poor," "broke," "dire," put off health care. it is not a good picture at all. host: did anything surprise you? guest: the willingness of people to try to get back into the workforce. there is a stereotype or something that you could say, well, after a year you have not worked, you are not trying hard. people report trying pretty darn hard. the overwhelming majority of them have been looking actively seeking work, and nine out of 10 said they would be willing to switch fields. 70% said it and would be happy to take a job retraining. 83% said they would be willing to work weekends, at night shifts, anything to get back into the workforce. people are overwhelmingly eager to work, and report trying, but

just having a tough time. host: if you want to talk to marilyn geewax about her survey done in connection with the kaiser family foundation, we have divided the lines this way -- how do weyed -- define that these days? guest: there are a lot of people who really are working 20, 30 hours a week, and they are really looking for better employment and would like to be able to move up. they, too, are looking for work. they are not by unemployed, but they are not really employed,

either. another thing to note is that a lot of people are starting to just move out of the work force. the november unemployment report shows that there is an improvement in the unemployment rate, but it was almost 3-to-one bid for every job that was created, there were three people who just gave up. we have been losing jobs at a furious pace. it is almost 2012. you are talking about years and years of people -- time passing with the tough job market. there are people who were 58 years old, now 62, and are just taking social security and give up and say "i am retired, i will not keep in my head against the wall." you are starting to see a shrinking labor force. in a way, that is good. we had excess labor.

but on the other hand, you hate to see people going into retirement, just sort of giving up. host: people confident to get pay and benefits to to get by -- guest: well, it is america, and people are optimistic. even if you have been out of work for a year, there is a lot of people out there who are very optimistic and say they will find another job. i think it it depends on your age. if you talk to older workers, they tend to be more in the direction of this is just not working for me, i am going to have to retire poor. younger workers are more optimistic and still think that eventually things will work out. host: many say that they have the education and skills to compete in the job market. guest: a lot of people do

believe they have the right amount of skills. but we also ask, are you willing to get retraining? it is a bit of a conflict, because people think they can function in the labor market, but seven in 10 at say they need more training. if someone will help me get into a training program, i need the training. host: craig on the unemployed at line. caller: i have been unemployed for four years. it may be due to the fact that i have a pre-existing heart condition, and workers, won't injure me on a job any place. -- won't insure me on a job any place. the second is i lost my driver's license. i made my mistakes and everything, but what am i supposed to do? i have a wife and daughter, we're living on a $7.25 paycheck. there is no other jobs out there for me. i was doing site jobs for other people. i had a heart attack in

september. now nobody will give me any kind of work at all. guest: sir, i am really sorry about your situation. that is extremely difficult. i hear you on that. the situation for a lot of people is similar to. the kaiser family foundation was the co-sponsor of this with npr, and they really look at what is the impact on health. what we have found is that there's almost this downward spiral in terms of employment and health. the great majority of people who have been a long-term unemployed say they have put off some form of medical care because they could not afford it but they are not going to the doctor, skipping dental appointments. if you are not feeling well, you have a medical condition, cannot afford to get medical care, it's sort of a deepens the whole. you are missing accused, that it is hard to go out and smile -- missing a tooth, is hard to go

out and smile for me tell job. it limits your options if you cannot get medical care. that is one of the things that jump out in the study, that there are quite a few people who said they either gained more, either gained at 10 lbs. or lost 10 pounds in the last year. one out of 10 to said they increased use of drugs and alcohol because of the stress. you start out with the problem, and the whole bit deeper because it is tough to afford medical care. host: 21% said it and got money from family and friends. 15% said they took money from savings to make ends meet. stay island, new york, line for those who say they are underemployed. what you do? caller: entertainment executive,

i search and develop artists for television, comedy, or music. i do that independent, because -- i'm sorry, ms. geewax? guest: geewax. caller: you made a statement in your opening that most individuals are underemployed because they are undereducated, minorities, they have -- well, they are under educated and they are minorities, and there was a third point i cannot remember at the moment. but i am not an irritated. -- not better educated. i have and assess its in communications, time -- i have an associates in communications, and i'm working on my bachelor's, and i still cannot get a job in my field. i don't understand where your numbers are coming from. one other point, before you cut me -- the labor department

review -- yeah, we went down not because people are finding jobs -- at least that is how i feel, because i'm out here. you cannot get any more money, so now is easy to go on welfare because welfare does not say you cannot have more money. guest: ok, allow me to make just a couple of points. thank you so much for calling. one of the points you make is that you don't fit all of this profile of being poorly educated. absolutely, it is true that people across the board have lost jobs and have been unable to find jobs. i lost my job. i was well educated. i had a master's degree. i had a long reputation in work. but they closed my bureau. i work for a newspaper. -- worked for a newspaper. i played by the rules and, education and i still lost my

job. people on wall street to work -- people on wall street who were multimillionaires lost their jobs. this recession has rolled across field after field of the field and crushed everything in sight. it has been at a very tough job market reacted ivins is that generally speaking, statistically, not every person, people who have higher levels of education levels ofreemployed -- people who have higher levels of education can get reemployed. maybe you have to sell a house and change your kit's college. it can feel painful, but you can live on $60,000 a year. people who were making $20,000 a year cannot step down much more. it tends to be that across the spectrum, people lose jobs, but better educated people have more options to at least get back into the game. that is what statistics show. again, statistics suggest groups

of people. it is not individuals, any one person's situation can be different. but on the issue of the unemployment benefits, that is something that is really being hotly debated. right now in congress, they are looking at extending unemployment benefits paid since 2008, the federal government has helped to extend unemployment benefits. that is a state function, but the federal government has been providing more money, so that people can get 99 weeks of unemployment in many cases it. it might now that is one of the things that is still in motion, as far as our they going to continue with the 99 weeks or just ratchet it back to 59 weeks of unemployment. people laughed out of work for more than a year, it is possible the -- people who have been out of work for more than a year, it is possible the benefits will go away. guest: there is no question that

the labor market is just awful. it has been awful for the years. as far as a downward spiral, right now the numbers are not showing that. the numbers are getting better, actually it. be seeing a little bit more job creation. in recent months, we've been averaging 40,000 new jobs each month. the numbers are moving in the right direction. but there is such a huge gap. we would need to be treating 300,000 jobs a month to start to really soak up all the people who are unemployed. right now there are paid little over 13 million people who are unemployed -- right now there are a little over 13 million people who are unemployed. host: illinois. sabrina on the unemployed line. caller: good morning. i have a question about unemployment but they said they want to cut them down.

i was employed since the age of 16. i am now 28, and i have two children. they say, well, go find a job with less pay. but that would include paying for day care, which is an average of $600,000 a month. how nice to take -- how am i supposed to take a less-payi ng job, plus pay for my family and daycare? guest: thank you for your thoughts on this. here is the idea -- when you extend an and limit benefits -- when you extend unemployment benefits, is because people are in this sort of circumstance, you are trying to find a job and he just needed a bit of help tell you can get it together. -- you just need a little bit of help until you can get it together. they what the 99 weeks to help

people make this transition, especially in hard hit states like ohio and michigan, places with high unemployment rates. the argument is that people really need the money. the second point is that it is economic stimulus. the economy is really weak right now. if you take away people's unemployment benefits, how much worse will the foreclosure rate get? our caller here, how much worse would her circumstances be without any help from unemployment benefits? if you are grocery store, you want people to continue getting those checks. the average check is about $200 a month. that puts food on the table for many people. the arguments against it -- there are many republicans who say that the lagarde stay out of work, the tougher it is to get a job, and giving people two years of unemployment benefits in the long run it hurts them, because you need to get moving, whatever that means. you have to take a part-time job

or whenever. extending the inevitable problems is not really the way to get back into the workforce. there is pretty good evidence that the longer you are out of work, the tougher it is to get a job. they want to taper down the benefits to spur you to take a job, even if it is the wage, to get you into the workforce -- even if it is a lower wage, to get you into the work force. host: bill, unemployed line, good morning. caller: i am a self-employed electrician, only because i was laid off with 20 other of the top electricians working for the company i previously worked for. they kept all of the under-paid employees and lay off -- laid off the top earners at the company. no fault of their own. we just made too much. anyway, i think it is very

important for the country to get back to work, and the best way to do that is infrastructure. we had a terrible problem in this country, probably 50 years behind the times on rebuilding our infrastructure. we have water systems throughout the country, municipalities throughout the country, with water systems that are dilapidated, losing money because of leakage through their systems, and not purifying for contaminants, arsenic and things like that. guest: well, this is, again, one of the big debates on capitol hill, how much spending to have up for infrastructure. democrats tend to argue we need to build more infrastructure, for the reasons he just stated. it would create jobs, the argument is, and it would build the infrastructure we need for

the 21st century. argument is that the government has a lot of debt and it does not help to have at securities downgraded because we have so much in debt, and if we spend too much on infrastructure, it hurts the country because it adds to our debt and deficit problems. again, it is a political battle over do we need to spend more on infrastructure to create jobs or not. host: 59% of respondents said the bank took money out of the savings funds to pay bills, 53% have been contacted by a collection agency, 51% to borrow money from relatives or friends to pay bills, 47% said they had problems paying rent or mortgage. guest: people even when they were working, the majority did not have a very high income for the long-term unemployed. a lot of people did not start out owning a home.

for those who did, a lot of people faced foreclosure because of being jobless. we had a real foreclosure problem that is very closely tied to this unemployment and underemployment problem, where you really have so many families lwho just cannot make the payments, people in this category of long-term unemployed, roughly 5 million people. host: brandon, good morning. caller: how are you doing? good show today all around. i get unemployment. i don't want that. i would rather have my own business, becausbut because i 't have a 20-page report, i can run it out of my house, but i cannot get loans for anybody. i pay child support. two kids. i see my kids every weekend. that is not enough for my car

payments. you see what i'm saying? loan, but to get a there is no move for me to read all the way i make money -- no move before me. the only way i make money is going to different parties and taking pictures around the neighborhood. guest: this is one of the ongoing problems with the economy right now, this issue of credit. there is a lot of money to be loaned, but credit scores have been poor for a lot of people let it out of work. -- people who have been out of work. it is one of this downward spiral problems where if you have been out of work for a while, chances are good, and people in the survey who said they were cut it by a collection agency -- never a good sign if you are trying to get a loan for anything. only 4 in 10 to said they would be willing to move to another

state for a job. people are willing to do all kinds of things -- retrain, work nights -- do all sorts of things in place, but moving to another state can be very difficult, and for good reasons. he has got children, there are people who have elder care issues. you have to stick around to help your parents. but also, if you move to another state, and your credit score is low, how do you turn on utilities? how'd you get the first phone? how'd you get a card to drive to the jobs? there may be jobs being created in places like north dakota -- oil boom, jobs there, might sound good to pick up and move. but what you tell your elderly mother ? dakota.ove to north you are 90, that will be fun." there are impediments other than just abandoning family obligations to is difficult for people to move because of the

credit issue and just the basic cost of moving. we are losing some of the mobility that has been the hallmark of the american economy. one other point on that is that home values are falling so much. you may be an unemployed family were in michigan did you would like to move. you know there are opportunities, but how to use on your house if you cannot get the credit to by anyone -- but how do you sell your house if you cannot get the credit to buy a new one? guest: well we have a tremendous mismatch in skills. i have spoken to a lot of employers who say that they would hire, and one of the o recent that the unemployment rate is so high that there are

jobs that go begging that they cannot get anyone to take. truck drivers is one of them. you can make $60,000 a year driving a truck. the problem is, you have to be away from your home two weeks at a time. people don't have child care. who is going to watch the kids? there are jobs in things like welding, crane operators. very high skill, but blue-collar work. there is not a lot of people who can afford to go into training programs to take the jobs. or they just don't know about them, don't know how to get into the jobs. what they are women and don't feel comfortable signing up to be the only woman in a welding class. you have psychological and physical barriers to people getting into the jobs. the reality is that we have such 8 skills mismatch that there really are jobs that just go begging, and employers -- i have talked to companies where it and say we would expand if we could get another treuck driver to

help us deliver the goods. host: unemployed line. chris, go ahead. caller: hello, marilyn and pedro. good to talk to you on the phone. i am one of the original 99ers. i have not had an unemployment check in it over a year. in three months, i will have to move out of my apartment and into my car, which is really a shame. no. 2, you talk about workers being trained. we had in our union if you are people going into nursing and four people going into computers. when they got their degrees, they got no job offers, because they were told they had no experience, meaning they were in their late 50s, early 60's, and nobody wanted to hire that. i understand all of these jobs that they want to make for the pipeline from canada down into

oklahoma -- valero energy says they had signed the contract with china. every bit of oil that they get that they are allotted will be turned into diesel and sent to china. none of this will help america and the price of gasoline we are having to deal with now. host: what is your background in? caller: i was an auto mechanic, i was making $100,000 a year. now i am making nothing. one mile from my house, we have auto row, 12 dealerships. eight of those are still in existence. four or five have closed down. in the lots, there are weeds. i have spent $300 in stamps and envelopes alone sending out resumes. i paid $110 to have a

professional resume made. nothing i can do, nothing, nothing. in found calls, i sent out letters. -- i make phone the calls come i send out letters to you cannot find a job anywhere doing what i was doing. host: thank you for telling us your story. guest: such a tough story. i am really sorry for what you are going through. that is really hard. you have described in a nutshell -- thank you for sharing that piece of life because what he is describing their, the business of retraining -- you know, one of the cruelties of this job market is that a lot of people say, "what experience and you have?" what they want you to do is take an unpaid internship. that is easy to do when you are in your 20s and are living with your parents.

but when you need to pay their rent, how do you take an unpaid internship to get your foot in the door? there are people who retrain and have bad experiences, where you pay the tuition to get retrained and then at their on their jobs. -- there are no jobs. you need to make sure that you are in a pipeline that will lead to an actual job, working with an employer who is working with a community college to have a feeder system to have people come into the workplace. again, it is one of those awful things -- one of the things in the survey is people said they did not feel discriminated against, for the most part. but the dirty secret of the job market is that people who have been out of work for a while are discriminated against in that employers, if they have a choice between two people -- let's say you are looking to fill a sales

job, and a person is fresh off a job, have crist context, have been out there selling networking, and here is a person who has been unemployed for two years and has lost touch with the industry. well, you know, you are probably going to want as an employer to take a person who is it fresh and already plugged in. the longer you are unemployed, the more you tend to be sort of discriminated against, in essence. you have got to get back into the work force, you have got to get back into the flow somehow. and yet, what he describes is really hard. that is why we just need to create a lot more jobs to try to lift up the job market. it is a difficult situation, and i'm sorry for that. host: out next call, alabama. underemployed. caller: what i wanted to

piggyback on is what the caller from delaware mentioned. i, too, an unemployed high of two degrees -- i, too, an unemployed. i have two degrees, economics and business administration. as far as business ideas and things you want to get started, sba, small business development center -- trying to get, as you said, money, loans, starting a job that would be a job creator, there are so many barriers to entry. businesses are already established. maybe they can do some training to work with people to work on business plans and ordered to have -- to start a business, to

where you can be a job creator. the two or three jobs in the community that are still open. guest: the thing that is so hard that people are describing here, when you step back and look at the big picture, what the heck is going on here, what happened? a macro look at it is that if you look back at the 1920's, going into the depression, what happened is that we were moving away from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy. lots of people -- all the okies who had to lose their farms and take factory jobs -- there were an awful lot of people who got kicked off of family farms and had to readjust. world war ii came along, they got a factory jobs, and we were off to the races. what we are going through is another big, giant change. we are moving away from a manufacturing-oriented, industrial economy into this

21st century economy. of. computer-based, a giant digital migration we are going through. there are kinds of people who got tossed out of work, especially in many -- there are tons of people who got tossed out of work, especially in manufacturing. we are in this giant transition every period, and there are entrepreneurs and bright people like this to just call in who want to create jobs for the 21st century. the transition, how do we get up and running, how do we abhor all those people who lost their jobs -- absorb all of those people lost their jobs in manufacturing and related industries -- even thingsl ike retail, you don't need cash years. you can order without even speaking to the waiter, because you can use a tablet or some device. all of these jobs are starting to change as we make this giant digital migration.

it is inevitable that it is going to be very difficult. the key is to speed it up in a sense. we cannot go back to the past. we are going to move into this information-based economy. it is a question of how we can get people up and educated enough and running and to move into a very globalized information-based economy. right now the stories we are hearing today are real-life stories of people are part of this and are having a tough time. host: florida. mike, good morning. caller: i have a few things to add. that i was making a lot of money in the automobile business c- that thisthe thing is is whole retraining thing to me is laughable. i am an it architect. just cannot get a six-month --

you just cannot get a six-month course in that from soup to nuts. that is not going to happen. if you have experience like i did -- i am 57, and my last compensation was $112,000 a year plus 10%, profit sharing, bonuses. they let me off two years ago. -- laid me off two years ago. we stayed in touch, we were always good friends. but the vp is gone, senior vp is gone, managers are gone, support people are gone, cio is gone. they laid them off because they were making too much money. if you are out there walking the streets, and you are 57, there are illusions about who they want to hire. i am going to throw something in front of you and i would love to hear your comments on it. the biggest danger to the economy is what they will not do is rehire high earners that make

all the low earners go out to dinner. guest: over the last couple of years, i have not an awful lot of journalists who -- of lost who. kno -- known an awful lot of journalists who lost a job. but much everybody took a new job with less pay. it is rare for anyone to lose their jobs in their forties or fifties and moved to a higher- paying job here. the downward pressure on wages has been tremendous. generally speaking, once you have lost a job in your 40's and 50's, getting back to what you earned before -- look at all the people who work at things like countrywide, all kinds of mortgage-related businesses. they made good money in the 1990's, the first half of the last decade. they probably will never get back to that level again.

in some cases you do, but generally speaking, this has been not just a recession that has taken away jobs, but even when you get jobs, generally speaking, people have not been able to get back up to where they were in terms of their pay. that has bad implications a longer term in terms of what kind of the savings retirees will have 20 or 30 years from now, because when you are in your 40's or 50's, that is when he needed to pile up a lot of money for your 70's and 80's. like he just described, that is getting tough to do. host: new orleans. rita, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to make a comment. i have been in college for three years. i am in my mid-forties. i been out of work for four years. i came back to fix my home. i hear a lot of things about how much people are making or

whenever, but i have been in the administration felt for 20- something years. i on my own home, i on my cars, everything like that. -- i own my own home and cars and everything like that. i have struggled, do everything people in the united states have been doing. i feel like i've conquered that. now that i am on my back, i have no job and no one wants to hire me. numerous applications did you go on line. i don't have money to go back to school. i even did a 360 and going to leasing an apartment, and they don't want you. i had a job in administration so i still don't understand that. i need public assistance, could not get that.

they found $60 of money in my checking account. after that finishes, like you to eat? that was a joke -- guest: i think that what we've heard this morning just underscores what a terrible a human and economic tragedy this long-term unemployment situation is. here are hard-working, talented, educated people who want to work, who cannot find jobs. that is hard on them individually, but it is just such an enormous economic drag for everyone. even though i have a job, i am a part of an economy that depends on everybody working. we need people paying taxes to read it would help with the debt and deficit perhaps we need people paying into social security -- we need people paying taxes. it would help with the debt and deficit. we need people paying into social security. right now, and tying the knot, trying to figure out how we get

people back into the work force, is the question of our generation. this is the big issue right now, how do we get people into the jobs of the 21st century. it is a big, messy, difficult process brought some of the things we heard today just underscore what a problem is. host: there is a report out from the associated press that both parties are expressing optimism about a deal on the payroll tax cut. what does that mean for those who received checks? guest: the argument of democrats and president particularly is that we needed this payroll tax cut. that is the money that goes to social security. everybody pays into the payroll tax if you are working. cut in theg this tax, it will save the average family $1,000 a year. that is a lot of gas money,

shoes for the kids, food on the table. for a lot of people that is important money. you don't want to all of a sudden in a static economy take $1,000 away from people with the other argument is wow, we really need a social security. it is not a good idea to toy with the funding for social security. right now, congress has been arguing over those two points of view, and a sort of need to work out a deal, because the year is running out, and this would take effect in the new year. what they are trying to decide is whether or not to extend the payroll tax. the argument in favor of keeping the tax is lower is that it will help stimulate the economy. the one thing the economy does not need right now is taking money out of people hostage paychecks. -- people's paychecks. host: 12 we know when it will be an actual reduction in benefits? guest: