tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 22, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EST
7:00 am
our guest this morning includes matt koch, chamber of commerce, oil sans an arctic issues president. talking about the states impacted by the expansion of the transcanada keystone pipeline. barry lynn joins us later, americans united for separation of church and state. our final guest, robert kaplan, is former vice chairman of goldman sachs. he will talk about his new book about leadership as it pertains to the economy. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning. converse -- speaker boehner,
7:01 am
democrats, republicans waking up to this headline in "the washington post." pressure growing on house republicans and attacks standoff could hurt the party. there could be resolution -- underscoring "could have" in the next day or two. we want to get your thoughts. we will hear from the president later today. he will remain in washington give no legislative business on the house and senate floor but there is intense debate on who will make them -- next move. a simple question this thursday morning -- should speaker boehner accept the senate bill, the two-month compromise?
7:02 am
you can also joined the conversation on line and threw email -- this mornings "washington post" has this headline. leaders urged to work out an extension of the deal. he points out something we talked about yesterday here, the "wall street journal" editorial who calls this a fiasco. it captured the frustration among republicans in the paper's addition, asking whether the gop's handling of the tax debate might end of reelecting the president even before the 2012 campaign gets underway.
7:03 am
we did not hear from the present yesterday. he went shopping in alexandria but "national journal" points out we will hear from him today. he will point out what the payroll tax that extension will mean for ordinary americans. the white house is riding a wave of public support in favor of extending the cut, writes "the national journal," and positioning democrats working to prevent a tax cut -- tax hike while he accused republicans of playing politics. we will be covering the present with his remarks. he is still here in washington. his family is in hawaii.
7:04 am
the speaker of the house, with his eight conferees that he appointed, meeting with reporters late yesterday morning. here is what the speaker had to say. >> we are here. and we are hoping that the senate democrats will appoint negotiators to come to the table and resolve these differences. i think it is important to note that the president, the bipartisan leaders in the house and the bipartisan leaders in the senate have all really asked for the same thing over the course of the last several months -- let's extend of the payroll tax credit for a year. all we are asking for is to get the senate members to work with us to resolve our differences so we can do what everybody wants us to do. host: comments yesterday from the speaker of the house as he met for the with reporters and gathered together the republican
7:05 am
7:06 am
so, a yes or no question -- should the speaker accept the senate deal? larry from tulsa, oklahoma. good morning to you. caller: good morning, steve. merry christmas to everybody across america. of course, they should not accept this. it is the democrats and the president who are playing politics. speaker boehner is just using common ordinary horse sense. a two-month extension is virtually impossible for all of the people in the finance industry to calculate. come on -- let's get it done for a year, make it two. thank you, merry christmas. host: larry from tulsa, oklahoma. mike from chicago. you also say no. caller: i do not think they are finished with it. what is two months going to do? congress is in town. i do not know what the president
7:07 am
is doing -- i think he ought to call the senate back and let them finish their work and that and do their job. host: roger is saying yes to this question. joining us from pennsylvania. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: they should it pass it because the president said if they pass it, then they are going to work it out. so, i think they should pass it. i am a worker who makes $12,000 a year. i am a custodian. and i have no benefits, no health benefits at all. so i think they should pass it. thank you and have a great holiday season. host: thank you very much. let me go back to this editorial. it really seems to drive the discussion yesterday. we talked about. it is available online at
7:08 am
7:09 am
senate deal, a two-month compromise and then work out a one-year agreement in late january? susan is saying, no. she joins us from kankakee, eleanor. caller: i say, no. i think it is a job being done by the president and harry reid of the people. i really think that the senate was afraid that if they passed it, that the president would veto it, so they just shelved it. actually, that is what harry reid is doing, just shelving it a different way. host: victor is saying yes. joining us from largo, caller: when the senate votes 90 to 10 you send it to the house. i do not understand what the no comes from. host: from joan in vermont --
7:10 am
you can send us an e-mail and you can also join the conversation on line on facebook or join us by tweet. michelle from minneapolis. she says no. caller: my answer is no. boehner is doing what he needs to do. we have to get back to this thing called order where the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, the come together in conference and they work it out. we spent so many years trying to mandate issues and we forgot there is this thing called order. and the senate needs to get back. they need to find what it takes
7:11 am
to do this for a year. they could not find ways to come up to pay for it. the president needs to get off than the campaign trail and get back to washington -- or he is in washington, but he needs to get back to work. host: we will hear from the president. we heard from jay carney yesterday. the president went shopping at a petsmart store. the question is whether he will join them in hawaii or stay here. inside "the new york times" --
7:12 am
again, this morning from inside "the new york times." lyndon is joining us from virginia. what is your answer? caller: my answer is, yes, absolutely. the $40 per page. or $80 a month may not seem like a lot -- for those people who are struggling, that is a lot. $40, if you drive a small car, is a tank of gas. it helps the economy because it allows you to get to work and make money and spend it. we need leaders who truly care
7:13 am
-- host: thank you for the call. a little bad connection on your cellphone but we got the message. thank you for calling in from virginia. this is a story from inside "the new york post." refering to the president and the first dog bo as they went shopping. the president takes the first dog holiday shopping. he remains in washington today and likely through tomorrow. next we go to john from kentucky. use a no. why? -- you say no. caller: they are paid to do a job. would you get paid if you did not do your job? i don't think so. i would be proud to have john boehner for me, because he is a leader. you all have a good day in merry
7:14 am
christmas. host: thank you. dorothy is joining us from hampton, virginia. caller: good morning. i say, yes, because this is what the republicans do. you remember when they held the president hostage on the unemployment to get the bush tax cut passed? this is what they are doing. they are putting something in there that should not be in there trying to make the president sign it so they can get the pipeline through, but they are not doing any environmental study of what it is going to the people. think of what happened in louisiana when the gas line that the -- busted and all of the animals and the oil and the santa stuff, the stand tar on the beaches and all of that -- sand tar on the beaches and all that. what if leakage comes out? what are we going to said then? i say, yes, stop it, do a study
7:15 am
, because they are not thinking about the environmental impact on human lives but only the big companies. they are not thinking about the people because of a were thinking about the people we would not be in this mess what we are in right now. host: from our twitter page -- you can join our conversation on twitter.com. a story inside "the washington times" that lit up the blogos phere. i know to practice consistent is not control the cameras in the house and senate chambers -- they are controlled by the house
7:16 am
so we are required to accept what they feed us. yesterday from "the washington times" -- what essentially happened is house democratic whip steny hoyer from maryland and chris van hollen were on the house floor and they wanted to be recognized but the house had already gavel been as the close of business. in case you missed it, here is what happened. >> mr. speaker -- >> mr. speaker -- would like to ask for unanimous consent that we bring up the bill to extend a tax cut for 160 million americans as you walk off the floor, mr. speaker, you are walking out, walking away, just as so many republicans have walked away from middle class taxpayers, the unemployed, and very frankly, as well, from those who will be seeking medical assistance from their doctors, 48 million senior citizens. we regret, mr. speaker, that you
7:17 am
walked off the platform without addressing the issues of critical importance to the country and that is the continuation of the middle-class tax cut, the continuation of unemployment benefits for those at risk of losing them and a continuation access to the doctors for all of the 48 million seniors who rely on them daily for their health. i am pleased to yield to my friend mr. van hollen. >> [inaudible] host: that was the scene yesterday on the house floor. again, you heard a little bit of congressman chris van hollen and then his microphone was killed and there were no shots of representative steny hoyer because the camera was on the podium. those cameras are controlled by the house gallery. in the past, c-span put requests into speaker pelosi and to speaker boehner and to speaker gingrich to allow c-span to have cameras inside the chamber but
7:18 am
you basically saw what we saw and we were forced to go to other program as the house conclude business yesterday morning. back to your calls. should the speaker accept the senate bill? next is my joining us from st. paul, minnesota. caller: good morning. i appreciate your program. two fast points -- i say, 1, no. i can't imagine that the senate could pass or put forward a 60- day law when in fact they need to put forward a 365-day law. it is untenable they cannot camp -- , with a 365-day law. it is a political maneuver on president obama's part. the second point -- i listened to a tax accountant comment. this comment was that people withholding taxes are factored on a quarterly basis, three months, not two months.
7:19 am
he said this would cost businesses and accounting for -- accounting firms and measurable monday because their software is not designed to factor things for 60 days but on a quarterly basis. this is just a waste of time and effort and nothing but a democrat maneuver to once again make president obama look like a hero to the people, which are firmly believe he is not. host: thank you for the call. that is go back to the story we were reading earlier from "the wall street journal." he carries out the same point --
7:20 am
this impact on 160 million americans of the payroll tax cut bidding most of the attention. again, the headline we began the program with from "the washington post" -- from kenny joins us louisville, ky. you say, yes, the speaker should accept the senate bill? caller: thank you for having me. i believe that a deal -- bill should be no deal and every item to be for congress should stand up on its own merits. they keep putting all the stuff into each and every bill that the people of america did not see. every item should take care of its own self. host: from the home town newspaper, "the baltimore sun" covering steny hoyer.
7:21 am
just one of the sidebar stories that happen yesterday but many of you writing about it on social media pages, the speaker of the house was not in the chamber of the time. congressman steny hoyer was on the floor trying to deliver remarks, trying to bring a senate bill to the house floor and afterwards he spoke to reporters in a news conference. here is congressman steny hoyer. >> this is not a game. why are you all here? why are we able now to communicate to the american public? because we went to the floor. we went to the floor to speak to the american people. unfortunately, the speaker what off -- not speaker boehner, but the speaker pro-temp walked off the floor, they shut off the camera, they wanted to shut us down.
7:22 am
host: congressman steny hoyer yesterday morning following his brief appearance on the house floor. from our twitter page, john takes this point. next is john joining us from brooklyn, new york. caller: hello? yes. you are not giving the whole facts. there is an implication that people will get $1,000. dividing it over a year, the only get $20 out every week and see how little it buys in the grocery store. in the recent supreme court case -- in the supreme court case in 1960's, the last port of eisenhower term with the supreme court says social security is not a pension, it is not an insurance policy. congress has been embezzling from the social security fund
7:23 am
and this is another embezzlement. with all the money we waste on the worthless wars and tremendous embassy in iraq, it was a disaster, and so is congress. you need to tell the whole truth. host: thank you for the call from brooklyn. this viewer says yes and from washington, d.c. we will try one more time. we will go to kim in columbus, ohio. good morning. caller: hi. i say, yes to the bill. the caller before the blast -- this last caller, barack obama did ask for a year so why he keeps entering barack obama's name. this is congress, grown people we put in office to do a job. the senate probably should have passed a year extension but they decided on two months because they wanted to put the pipeline
7:24 am
in bank. that is not on barack obama and it is certainly not on the democrats. this is on the republicans who have been playing games since they have been in office. so everybody will put them in, i want to say, thanks a lot, it really appears to be american -- to put these fools and office is ridiculous. i watched this as a comedy show. they think they are getting barack obama. barack obama got in -- we have to worry about what we can get -- with republicans that is not much. host: thank you for the call. from inside "the new york times" --
7:25 am
many of you commented on our facebook page. you can join the conversation on facebook.com/cspan. well let joining us from illinois. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: should the speaker accept the senate bill? caller: yes, he should accept the senate deal. it was a compromise. democrats wanted a year -- they did two months so they can go at this thing again so they can change it and then boehner changed his mind at the last minute and they would not even bring it up to a vote. c'mon. this is ridiculous. why would not they bring it up for a vote? the argument that it would cost
7:26 am
the company so much to change it and then change it back. if they don't get it, they knew would have to change it and then they say they are going to bring it up and when they do finally get something they are going to have to change again. host: thank you for the call. from inside "the washington post" -- the back and forth continued in the course of the day yesterday, including these comments from white house press secretary carney in the daily briefing. >> the compromise exists. it was embodied in the senate bill supported by 90% of the
7:27 am
senate, republicans and democrats alike. it is available even now for the house to vote on. thus far the house leadership refused to allow the house of representatives to vote on that measure that has overwhelming bipartisan support. we urge the house leadership, speaker boehner, to reconsider the decision, to allow the senate bill to come up, to allow the house of representatives to vote on it, because we are confident that it will pass with both democrats and republicans. host: weighing in on this, from "the washington post" style section.
7:28 am
that is inside "the washington post." our question -- should the speaker accept the senate bill? caller: i think he should. the reason being, if i did not do my job, they would put somebody else in the to do it. maybe that is what the president needs to do. if he's got the power -- i don't know. i have been run off before.
7:29 am
i do not see where they are any different. host: appreciate the call from north carolina. tallahassee, florida big usa no. caller: items saying no -- i am saying no. when women take care of the budget, they need more than two months to try to plan for a year. unless you have a lot of money -- or if you are a parasite on society, you still do not understand. the two months are not viable. we need a year. and the president is the head of the democratic party and he can insist that they come back and push for the year that he asked for. and i believe he is using his party in the congress to cover for him, to make it two months and score a political gain. and i was they would quit playing politics -- both of
7:30 am
them. i am and i vba peaks -- because i believe they should both put politics out and stop sabotaging each other and start taking care of the business of the american people. host: this point on our twitter page -- a lot of people waiting in. -- another story from yesterday, and and we covered. at the transportation secretary ray lahood. this is a story from inside "usa today. crew -- "usa today."
7:31 am
next is kenyatta from milwaukee. you are saying, yes, the speaker should accept the deal? caller: i definitely think so. because they are procrastinating. what are we waiting for? it is something that really needs to be done, and they should the wellhead and just take care of it and get it out of the way. everybody is pointing fingers at obama. you know, obama has been here for four years. he is doing his job. i think he has been doing pretty well so far. it took eight years to ms. our economy up. -- mess our economy up. host: from "new york daily news," a photograph getting a lot of attention this thursday morning at two navy petty officers welcoming each other back home. they are openly gay and this is a result of the end of "don't ask, don't tell."
7:32 am
reprinted in "the new york times" and "the washington post." joe is joining us from savannah, georgia. savannah, new york. i apologize. caller: good morning. i say, no, because i think it was pretty smart of senate republicans and and the house to come up with a plan here because i think it is all planned. also, 90 days -- every job -- every workplace is for a quarter. they used the third quarter, second quarter, for corporate they should have at least done it for 90 days. but i think the senate should come that -- back. and i am happy with the president and what he has done so far -- i am a democrat -- but
7:33 am
i think the senate should come back and do the work of the people and extended this thing for a year and take care of medicare for two years and extend the unemployment insurance benefits. host: appreciate the call. joe from new york. we are asking whether the speaker of the house should accept the senate bill. on the twitter de -- in a way only the new york tab lead -- tabloids can do. next caller is mike from
7:34 am
kentucky. caller: i think the house republicans just need to approve this and go on. the republican policy -- everything from gave rights to abortion, it is the tactic. they just want to embarrass the president. they hate government. they don't want government to do anything for anybody. they just want corporations to rule our country. they did not want any regulations, and that is why they put a pipeline in big. i live in kentucky. the state looks like third world the way they strip mine. they ruined a million years of beautiful woods. part of the coal mining industry, they get jobs but their kids will never get those jobs. it is short-term thinking. so, i definitely think the democratic party needs to -- get
7:35 am
a vote on it, put on the floor and let the people vote on it. thank you. host: dorothy rabinowitz inside "the wall street journal." an interview that got a lot of attention on cnn got a lot of publicity in "usa today." he does about a newsletter from ge he disavowed a newsletter from 1996. 90% of black men in washington being somewhat criminal or entirely criminal. he says the comments needed to
7:36 am
be taken in context but on wednesday he said he did not write the newsletters and did not even know what was in them. part of the exchange yesterday. >> there are reports you made almost a million dollars offering of them in 1993. >> i would like to see that money. >> you read them but did not do anything about it? >> i never read that stuff. i was aware of that 10 years after it was written. for 20 years people pester me about this and cnn does it every single time. >> it is illegitimate? is it a legitimate question to ask? >> but when you get the answer it is legitimate you take the answers i give. you know what -- the answer is, i did not write them, did not read them at the time and i disavow them.
7:37 am
>> it is legitimate. these things are pretty incendiary. >> people like you. >> no, no. some of the stuff was very incendiary, saying in 1993 the -- the israelis were responsible for the world trade center bombing. all right. thank you, congressman. i appreciate you answering the questions. you understand it is our job to ask them. >> thank you. host: yesterday on cnn. that exchange available on cnn that a website. jim had a quick comment -- ej dionne writing about the iowa caucus.
7:38 am
next is john joining us from tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. thathey shouldn't do because they sent the senate a bill to end the senate should have had a counter punch on the bill that they said. they did not even put it up to a vote showed why should -- so why should the house put their bill up for a vote. we need a year. two months of not do nothing but kick the can down the road. host: thank you for the call. a photograph from "the new york times" and also from "the wall street journal." paratroopers from the 82nd airborne returning to north carolina.
7:39 am
part of the u.s.-led invasion of iraq in 2003. almost 200 of that division losing their lives. we mention that because there is news from iraq -- another set of explosions that killed at least 63 people overnight. joining me on the phone is the baghdad bureau chief from "the new york times." thank you for being with us. guest: good morning. host: tell us what happened overnight, and more importantly, who is linked to this latest act of terrorism in iraq? host: we will gup with a wave of bombings, more than a dozen of them across the capitol and lasting two hours. the most recent death toll is 63 killed and 180 or so wounded. it is not clear who is behind it, of course.
7:40 am
they were carried out by al- qaeda in iraq in the past but there are so many groups here it is unclear until the group state responsibility. host: there is some speculation this could only be the act of al qaeda because they would be the only ones who had the organization to do this in a series of attacks that took place almost simultaneously. host: they are obviously war needed. the 16 explosions in iraq and -- but again, some money -- so many armed groups here so you do not know. host: let me read one sentence from a story you posted a short while ago on the web site. saying this marks the most significant violence in iraq since the last american troops pulled out. there are still a handful left in the country but essentially we are out now. will this be the normal throughout iraq?
7:41 am
guest: this is actually the biggest islands i believe in a year, in the capital -- the biggest of violence i believe in a year, in the capital. you know, it is hard to say if it happened today because americans are gone. americans left a few days ago and these attacks were common when there were 60,000 troops here, 100,000 troops. combined with the political situation, if this is just one more crisis or the beginning of the unraveling of the state in the post-america iraq? host: talking to the baghdad bureau chief of "the new york times." i want to follow up because still a huge power vacuum with president al-maliki in charge, but many questioning just how much control he has over his country and the ongoing divisions he is having with his
7:42 am
parliament. guest: the question is not necessarily his control -- some say there is too much control, particularly of the armed services, and people were read his actions are leading toward authoritarianism -- authoritarianism. and effectively alienating the sunni minority. particularly dangerous because they were a dangerous insurgency ended invasion of ended generations of sunni control and allowed me shia to take over the country. if the sunnis are feeling marginalized is dangerous. host: i know it has been a couple of hours, but any concerns for your security and can you give us a sense of what you are seeing around the streets of baghdad this hour? guest: i have only been out briefly. one of my colleagues have been
7:43 am
reporting on the streets today. for folks out here covering this, this is not exactly unusual these days. it happens from time to time. i would not say we feel we are in greater jeopardy than we ever are. host: tim orango, his piece available this hour in "the new york times." at least 63 people killed, 180 wounded. the country already unsettled by a deepening political crisis and the absence of u.s. troops. appreciate your time this thursday morning. one other story from "the new york times" -- north korea. "north korea portrays son as firmly in charge." in looking at the old leadership and the new leadership inside
7:44 am
north korea as military leaders making a show of loyalty to who is being viewed as the great successor, of the heir to president kim jong il, who died over the weekend. back to your comments about the speaker of the house, whether he should accept or reject the deal. next is a viewer from ozark, arkansas. caller: it is ozark, alabama. good morning. they should go ahead and sign. i want the american people to hear this. i am a retired navy man and ever since boehner has been as speaker of the house, they have never decided anything in two weeks. so, do what are we going to hear for the next two weeks? it is not right. they suggest the wellhead and
7:45 am
sign and give us something firmly in place and then come together and finally make an agreement and get personal feelings against mr. obama out of this. stop playing games with the american people's's lives. come together as two different houses and make an agreement on something that is going to be firm and long term. host: thank you for the call. the story from alex gulstan from "the hill" newspaper. and there is a related story with thehill.com was karl rove telling republicans to fold on this. here is that exchange. >> i think "the wall street journal" editorial headed on the nail. the question is how the republicans get out of this and there is only one way -- that is, stay in washington, wait
7:46 am
until president obama gets on an airplane and hence to hawaii and then hold a session in the house, but the two-month extension and use it as an opportunity to beat up on the long-absent democrats and harry reid and absent president and say, look, this is not going to be good for the companies will have the right of paychecks because we already heard from people who process payroll checks that it will be a problem, not good for the american people because you only get them two months, and use it for political theater and though the two-month extension and get out of town but we lost the optics and only way to win is to stick their and ruin their own christmas and lambaste the democrats for abdicating their responsibilities for -- responsibilities. host: on our facebook page, more than 80 comments. and from our twitter page, jim has this point.
7:47 am
later in the program we will turn our attention back to the issue of religion and politics. something we talked about yesterday, but barry lynn will join us to get his thoughts on all of this, the separation of church and state. but when we come back, we will focus on the keystone pipeline. just how many jobs will be created and what is the impact on the environment and the u.s. economy. we will get a perspective from the u.s. chamber of commerce. it is thursday, december 22. "washington journal" continues in just a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> with the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary next month, "the contenders" looks
7:48 am
back at 14 men who ran for president and lost but had a long-lasting impact. here is our lineup -- tonight, five-time socialist candidate eugene debs, friday, charles henne -- charles evans hughes, chief justice, and then former governor of new york, mauze smith, and followed by a businessman and a member of the liberal wing of the gop, willkie. this holiday weekend, it is three days of "book tv." ry "after words" connor o'cle of the failed coup that led to gorbachev was a resignation. charles manor revisits the americas a year after christopher columbus our ride. edmund morris on teddy roosevelt. sarah wineman, best sellers of 2011, monday at 7:00 p.m. tom brokaw, monday at 8:30 p.m.
7:49 am
eastern. the full schedule is online at booktv.com. >> the c-span app is fast, easy- to-use and visual appealing and the audio quality as convincingly clear. insanely great, considering it is free. >> some application, it took me about 10 seconds to learn how to use it. >> anytime, anywhere, it's training diggingget streaming audio and video. c-span, it is available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org /radioapps. >> "washington journal" continues. >> we want to welcome matt koch from the u.s. chamber of commerce and we want to talk about the keystone xl pipeline. first, let us just take a step
7:50 am
back and look at it objectively and then we will get the chamber pots of perspective. what is the pipeline, where does it come from and what does it produce? guest: the proposed pipeline will run from alberta down to texas. it is about 1,600 miles of pipeline -- bringing in conventional crude as well as oil sans crude. it is also an opportunity to create jobs. but there are already pipelines coming down and there has been controversy over the past couple of years because there has been a permit request to this administration. looking at 1,600 miles of pipeline, 3 feet in diameter, low to the ground, and hopefully bringing in somewhere between 500,000 or 700,000 barrels of crude oil. host: is there anything like it now? guest: a pipeline that the obama administration permitted back in 2009 that was called the alberto
7:51 am
clipper and comes from alberta and heads to the refineries in the midwest. and similar sorts of cross- border pipelines and infrastructure that have been built and put into place. host: let us get the chamber perspective. we have the background and we will share some of the thoughts of those opposed to this. but why do we need this? guest: for a number of reasons. the u.s. will need about 21% more energy in 2025 then it has, according to the eia. here is an opportunity to bring in 500,000 to 700,000 barrels of oil. it is important for our economy, for job security, energy supporting -- industry. and it will displace oil from parts of the world that cannot have our interests in mind when it is important to look to our neighbor to the north who has
7:52 am
been a good partner, and a stable economy, and we have an opportunity to utilize this resource. host: an object of question because our audience may not be familiar. what is sand oil? guest: deposits of oil trapped in massive deposits on what might have been an ocean thousands and thousands of years ago that left oil and materials trapped in sand. what you have is basically a piece of sand with water and oil trapped in it. unlike conventional crude oil where you can drill and tried to extract it, or you have the crude and the products, -- you have to separate the oil and the sand and it is a little bit different method. it was costly for a number of years but frankly with the higher will bring prices and more technology being invested in ways to separate that oil, the prices have come down a bit in what it costs to produce it and it has become more
7:53 am
economical and worthwhile with the investment going on. host: respond to this information from the national resources defense council and friends of the earth. the point out in the last year or bring your and half among the kalamazoo oil -- river in michigan, 1 million gallons of spilled. 126,000 gallons of north dakota and 42,000 gallons in the yellowstone river along the montana border. guest: it is ingesting they raised the point, for a number of reasons. oil is still transborder mostly through pipelines, more than any other method. and we need this oil. it will come from somewhere. this pipeline that will be built, those were pipe line incidents and they do occur. it is not a risk-free. but it still remains the most safe way to bring oil into the country. we need to look at the fact that this would be the latest technology built, probably the
7:54 am
most safe and technologically advanced pipeline to be built. the other point you want to look at is in order to bring that oil -- that energy, you need to have some way to get it here. you are looking at thousands and thousands of trucks or barges to transport the same amount of oil in this country. even the state department recognized it in what they published in august, saying while the pipeline is the lowest risk, it is still less risky from bringing in the oil from other methods. host: let us look at some information in favor of the pipeline. transcanada saying it could create 9% oil 10% u.s. oil consumption, equal to u.s. imports from saudi arabia. 13,000 construction jobs, 7000 manufacturing jobs, at 118,000
7:55 am
spin-off jobs, $100 billion in economic activity, and more than $585 million in state and local tax revenue during construction in that part of the country. guest: there has been discrepancy and people tried to raise concerns about some of the numbers, but you are looking at a minimal of 20,000 jobs just in the construction base. there are simply no two ways to look at that. 13,000 jobs transcanada agreed to -- they have an agreement in place. in addition, they have what has been some of the manufacturing going on to make the parts. and as you mentioned, we created an organization called the partnership to fuel america and which has been involved in organizing small businesses to be active in speaking up in favor of not only the pipeline but the oil sands developed --
7:56 am
development, and a lot of those companies, development, service companies, the comfort inn in montana, home town computer services and south dakota and a number of these other places, those businesses understand this pipeline will bring jobs, will bring them opportunities to put people in their hotels, have people come to the restaurants, sell tires to the trucks they will use and a tremendous benefit to people up and down that pipeline. host: matt koch, from upstate new york, he worked in the department of an edgy and a veteran of the bush white house. you understand the politics. the white house said they were delaying a decision to the state department because it crosses international borders, in part to conduct a study to make sure it is safe. guest: we were really disappointed. we have been through -- they have been through numerous environmental impact statements.
7:57 am
they really isolated and looked at -- specifically in nebraska. there has been a real thorough examination of this. we felt the delay -- delay was not necessary. we thought they needed to make a decision. transcanada is looking at a $7 billion investment. it is a tremendous opportunity not only for jobs now but what they will bring in. to delay this further in these economic times is just unfortunate. we feel like we don't want this country to miss the opportunity. host: this program works with your calls and comments and e- mails and questions so we ask you to do so in a number of ways. send us an e-mail or joined the conversation on line. we will get to your calls in a moment. one of the related comments from this tweet --
7:58 am
guest: that question has come up often get a lot of people raising the u.s. simply wants to export or refined products. the oil primarily is going to stay here. if you look at what the american demand is and what we need, how are refineries are not -- how they not only are retrofitted but designed to produce the products coming from oil sands, of course the companies want to be the to compete globally and of the global marketplace that dictates oil prices require or there is a need to exports of crude oil, that may happen. but i think principally if you look at what our demands are -- and we need more energy in our country, a lot more -- the market is here. that is why the canadians want to send it here. there are a lot of other countries looking for more energy, primarily in the east --
7:59 am
china and india. and when you have a huge demand year and a huge demand overseas, and canadians want to send it here, we would like to see it here. host: background on what is the existing pipeline is. about 2,100 miles build at a cost of about $5 billion and producing on average about 435,000 barrels of oil a day. the extension of this pipeline would be built at a cost of $7 billion, adding an additional half a billion barrels of oil a day. a 1,600 mile pipeline. george is joining us from daytona, florida. republican line. with matt koch from the chamber of commerce. caller: i have to be suspicious and asked the obvious -- why doesn't canada want to build its own refinery? i come from the philadelphia area. i have been 20-25 years in the
8:00 am
oil the industry. i understand the problems with refining, and the emissions and all of that stuff. we know the area where that oil wants to go is already producing or refining heavy sulphur fuels from venezuela. they are almost at capacity with venezuelan oil. are we trying to get rid of venezuela in this country? why doesn't can adapt build their own refinery? build doesn't venezuela their own refinery? guest: i think the canadians are facing some of the same problems that we have had, trying to build a refinery in the country. also, looking at the economics of building a refinery, we have some trouble trying to
8:01 am
sometimes look at expansion, trying to break ground for a brand new refinery in this country is difficult to do. not only to attract capital of what is needed to get the permits and get it built. the economics play out that i think the canadians can export crude oil to places like the u.s. or find ways to satisfy their own demands in other ways. with regard to the venezuelan crude oil, i cannot speak to where the crude oil will go. if there are opportunities to displace their crude oil by bringing in from a more stable country that we have a better relationship with like canada, we would like to do that. host: this is from an e-mail.
8:02 am
guest: i am proud to say my father is not one of the koch brothers. he is probably watching. he came home from church this morning and is probably watching us. if i was related, i do not think i would be working for the u.s. chamber of commerce and spending my time here. host: we are glad you are here with us. we hope your parents are watching as well. marilyn, good morning. caller: what is the cost of refining the oil sands to the port where it can be transported -- to the point where it can be transported through the pipeline? what is the cost of refining it after it gets to the gulf refineries? what will the end price be at
8:03 am
the gas pump for the american consumer? guest: that is a good question. oil sands have to compete in the global energy market. for a number of years, it was really costly to separate that oil from the sand and get it into a fashion that they could be refined in the u.s. there is a process they do to separate that oil. once it enters into the pipeline, and it starts getting down to refiners, it acts like any sort of other crude oil. it is a little heavier. our refineries have been retooled and we designed to it.ehandle it has to compete in the global marketplace. the price will be dictated by what happens in the market. the refiners will take more on
8:04 am
if the price is competitive and they can refine it at a price that is the same as their other refined products. host: our guest is matt koch from the u.s. chamber of commerce, oil sands and arctic issues. the state of nebraska does not want this pipeline because it puts one of their main water sources at risk." fact or fiction? guest: there is some fact to that. there are a lot of concerns about the potential of oil spills. and what could happen if there is a problem with the pipeline. we think those concerns were aired. there is an awkward for that sits under most of nebraska. aquifer thatan awkward fo
8:05 am
sits under most of nebraska. there are other pipelines that already run through those parts of nebraska. some of the neighboring states as well. we think that transcanada has made a number of concessions and has done a lot of work to alleviate those concerns. with the state department's recent decision, that was primarily to allow nebraska and transcanada to work out the differences between what transcanada wants to do and the concerns about those areas. host: the existing pipeline is just over 2,100 miles. daniel has this question. do you know that number? guest: i do not know that number. there is the transcanada
8:06 am
pipeline, and then through other methods of bringing that crude-oil into the country through other means. what -- once it is in the pipeline, a kit distributed throughout the country. it is hard to say you have dedicated pipelines just for oil sands. in alberta, they plan to have traditional crude oil in that pipeline as well. host: buddy asks -- guest: transcanada is paying for the pipeline. through their own methods of financing, they are building the pipeline themselves. as far as the price compared to the global market, again, our price is set by what happens
8:07 am
globally. at times when our supplies are doing well either through u.s. development or other methods, it is based on what consumers will pay for. i do not expect this oil sands crude is going to have a higher price or raise prices. having more availability to flexible supply will give us an opportunity to perhaps stabilize our market at times when there are big fluctuations. host: from paul -- guest: no. relationship of the benefits for the american taxpayers. this is a company that has invested about $5.2 billion. you have state and local property taxes and other taxes are going to be paid to the
8:08 am
great benefit of those people in those communities. there are refineries in parts of this country. there is some refineries in minnesota, illinois, and michigan. we talked about a pipeline that was previously built from alberta into the midwest. those refineries demanded they wanted that type of crude. there was a demand for it. the company build that pipeline in order to meet that demand. transcanada is looking at what the demand is for crude in parts of our country in the gulf region. they feel they can be competitive and bring in crude that will be competitive around the world. host: who will pay for the cleanup? guest: the companies are
8:09 am
responsible. i am not a pipeline safety expert, but companies have some responsibility of that. also through tax dollars, there is money set aside to help pay for cleanups. certainly when you have government regulators, people in place to help resolve that and insure the cleanup is done to certain standards, but it is the company's responsibility. host: our guest is with the u.s. chamber of commerce talking about the transcanada pipeline and what is next in this process. the house included that with the overall tax measure, and the question remains whether the president will go along with it or whether this issue will be killed. what do you think is going to happen? guest: it is hard to say. we are hoping this will remain
8:10 am
in whatever package is determined. it is been a messy few days. i know a lot of people in washington have made changes in their plans. all in all, we are hopeful like most americans that decisions can get made and people can get beyond this and a compromise can be made. at the end of the day, we are hopeful that this keystone provision will remain in the bill. host: the republican line, good morning, greg. caller: good morning, gentlemen. c-span, thank you for taking my call. this is an excellent platform for americans to voice their opinion. obama will do everything in his power to kill this pipeline bill. there is a radical segment of the democratic party that will not allow anything like this to
8:11 am
happen. we cannot build hydroelectric plants. we cannot drill in the pacific. there is a moratorium that is now lifting in the gulf. we cannot drill off the east coast. we cannot drill in nebraska. every time there is a conflict in the middle east, gas and oil prices spike. it is the average american joe that suffers for this. everything goes up. inflation goes up. food goes up. it is harmful. we need this pipeline as a cushion during bad times when there is conflict. thank you so much for your time. host: thank you for your call.
8:12 am
matt koch. guest: he raises a number of good points. i am involved working for the institute of energy. one of the issues that we promote it is our country needs a lot more energy infrastructure. there are different types of energy that's being developed in this country and we feel we need all of them. we need wind energy and alternative energies. without question, no matter what type of energy use support, we need energy infrastructure. we are certainly a lagging in the development of wind and renewable resources and also waged to move that energy around the country. one of the benefits of this pipeline is it will allow for this being developed in north dakota and wyoming to allow some
8:13 am
of our domestic resources to enter into the marketplace. in addition, it is going to bring things like power in parts of rural america. north dakota has had tremendous growth in oil and gas, but for years, they have been looked at as a place for wind energy but there is no infrastructure to try to get that energy into the grid. we often face a banana syndrome where there are a lot of folks in this country who do not want to recognize that our country needs this energy infrastructure built. those things have to come from somewhere. we need this infrastructure. it is a challenge. it is well recognized by people across all energy sectors.
8:14 am
host: how would you answer this question? guest: we would absolutely support that. we are a big supporter of domestic energy development of all types. it is been hard to find new places to drill in this country, but getting a refinery built in this country is very difficult. there has certainly been capacity added. equivalent to seven or 10 refineries built in this country because of expansion's. rebuilding on the existing footprint. we would support that. was a point that we need all types of energy. host: let me go back to friends of the earth who are concerned about the dirty tar sands oil,
8:15 am
claiming -- guest: i think that is a reach. there have been studies done of this crude. it has slightly a higher profile of how it is been demonstrated, but the numbers have gotten better as this technology has gotten better. this resource has been a boon because frankly the people recognize that, recognizing that we need to develop this crude and do it in an environmentally friendly way. the types of methods developed far exceed what was some of the message that were done 20 years ago as far as reducing footprint and having less environmental impact. as we continue to move forward bridge into these new
8:16 am
technologies and find ways to get to that future where we can use alternative energies, we cannot turn our back on resources that are available. we recognize that technology and regulations are going to make things better. host: barbara is joining us. thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i am totally against the pipeline. my family has been forming in nebraska since the 1800. -- my family has been farming in nebraska since the 1800's. the possibility of destruction from this pipeline is a very scary thought. i do not know a single nebraskan who is for this baloney. i think it is 7 million people's
8:17 am
water system that could be affected. we only have one planet. let's stop destroying it. remember the bp oil disaster? they were telling us that situation was fined. let's change our ways, clean up our act, and quit messing with the dirty energy and concentrate on getting something that will keep this planet going. or do you not care about that? do you believe in the rapture? are you one of those guys? host: we will get a response. guest: we certainly feel there is a need for all forms of energy. the bridge to a new energy future is not a short one. is going to take a while to get their. we need to develop technology to get all of these other alternatives as well. we need to continue to use the
8:18 am
energy that we have now to bridge to the future. in regard to nebraska, i have been there a number of times to talk to folks. they do not oppose the pipeline. they oppose the route. some of those details are being worked out right now. the state legislature just passed a couple of bills, and regulators will meet with transcanada to try to look at different alternatives. 40 different route were considered during the phase that transcanada was looking at where to put the pipeline route. they settled on what they thought was the best one. at the end of the day, neb.n raskans have raised concerns about the route itself. that is part of the process.
8:19 am
host: let's go back to the map. we are talking about the transcanada pipeline. the source of the energy is where? guest: is in alberta. host: why the pipeline? guest: a pipeline, again, by every sense of the way you can look at it, it is the safest way to get that crude down here. host: where does it go from the gulf coast? guest: what it does not show is a number of other routes that extend from the gulf refining regions to other parts of the country. there is a route that goes right up to mississippi and to the midwest. there are some dekko west and other parts of the country. there are a few that swings through the southern part of the southeast. just out here in fairfax, va.,
8:20 am
there is a pipeline and distribution point from their and other places in new jersey that help distribute some of that refined product in two refineries or toward gas stations and other places all around the northeast. host: i want to ask one other question. why not take it from alberta to washington state or california? it is a much shorter distance. guest: there are some refineries in washington. but the demand and the way to get more of this crude to more refineries -- the company made a business choice that this is the direction they wanted to go. host: next is mike joining us from michigan. independent line, go ahead.
8:21 am
caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i have seen a documentary. for americans, the bottom line is who is going to make this deal? is it going to be our trucking companies? are we going to build this whole thing from scratch? are we really going to have american workers do all of this? that means a lot to me. i am a truck driver and a welter. are we going to get in on this? is there a job out there for me? i will take my answer off the air. guest: thanks, mike. i think there are a lot of people interested in these jobs.
8:22 am
"i have been out of work, so how can i get one of these jobs working on the pipeline? " we are certainly looking at this as a tremendous opportunity with a lot of job benefit by private sector investment. somewhere between 13,000 labor jobs in construction and anywhere from 6000 to 10,000 jobs will be created by truckers and other folks who will be bringing in supplies or selling tires and doing other sorts of things. but i want to raise another point about some of the benefits of construction. the areas that this pipeline is going to go through is going to see property tax benefits as well as other state and local tax benefit. when you look at some of these communities in south dakota, we had a gentleman who said "i live
8:23 am
in a county of 5000 people. to have $500,000 of tax benefit is tremendous to us." as a result, he sees a great benefit to his business. we also hear from other builders and contractors and truckers who say this is going to mean we will build more roads, bridges, schools, recreational facilities, and things that we may not have had an opportunity to do before. host: respond to this comment from one of our viewers. there are a number of related tweets. guest: we are pushing for a number of alternative energy sources. this is a huge resource.
8:24 am
we have found ways to make it more cost effective. as technology has gotten better, shell oil development and the potential for that in parts of the northwest and the southern part of the southwest of our country, the natural gas development that has happened in places like northern pennsylvania simply because this technology has gotten better. as the technology gets better, they will find less risky ways to do it. we do believe in alternative energy and we believe that we need to get their. we have a number of alternative energy companies, and we support and believe what they do. a lot of the infrastructure that is needed to develop the supply of energy is not here now. we need a bridge to get there. host: from your standpoint, are there lessons from the bp oil
8:25 am
spill that can be applied to this? guest: i think so. there are certainly -- the impact has been there is more public awareness and more people engaged wanting to ask questions about what this means for this country bank regulators have had a chance to go back and look at some of the regulations as they often do and see if they meet not only wherever the new resources are or the new challenges due to technology. there have been some lessons learned. i think there is going to be a benefit going forward. host: let me ask you about a "new york times" story this morning. this is a story that points out --
8:26 am
just some general observations. guest: i am not an economist. i think any uptick at any time is beneficial. i certainly think when watching what is going on in washington, we are not sending good signals to business or investors and people who need ways to invest their money with some of the disruptions with regard to the extension of taxes and things. but at the end of the day, we recognize that more needs to be
8:27 am
done. host: next is jimmy joining us from south carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to make, if i may -- a couple of questions, but i would like to make a comment. i have been calling since you all came on this morning, concerning the last segment. host: go-ahead. caller: the house passed a bill, send it to the senate, harry reid made several changes, send it back to the house, and the republicans are following the procedure that has been the procedure for over 200 years. i would like to remind people, folks, that in 2009, when the house locked up with the super
8:28 am
majority, they not only would not allow them to go home, but they kept them there with all kind of mayhem going on, backroom dealing, until the bill, passed on christmas eve. so, why can harry reid not appoint -- it is because he and the president are the ones not wanting to honor and follow the constitution. host: thank you. caller: the questions are -- it is my understanding, on average, these pipelines go yay or nay within 18 months. it is been 3 years. the state department promised two or three times this year in
8:29 am
2011 that a decision would be coming forth before the end of the year. host: thank you for the call. let me add to that because there is an international issue from a viewer. guest: the state department issued -- jimmy is right. he made a good point. typically, the process takes from the time the permit is applied for, somewhere in an 18- month period. yes, the administration some time last year said it would have a decision by this past spring, and then this spring, they said it would have a decision by the end of the year. a lot of people want to get back to work.
8:30 am
the state department did feel like there was some other issues they wanted to go back and reexamine regarding nebraska. that has led to this decision to move it passed the next election to january 2013. we are hopeful that as people continue to speak up and the work that is being done in nebraska, we can get that time line shortened and find a way to issue that permit sooner so we can get people back to work. host: canadian support? guest: we have not heard that opposition. there is a tremendous job boom going on in parts of alberta due to the development of natural resources include an oil sands. there are some people raising concerns about that. there is very low unemployment. the regulators in that province
8:31 am
have put a lot of regulations in place to ensure developers have to do everything to restore some of the land back to its original state and other regulations that are pretty stringent. i think the people of the alberta and canada understand this is a tremendous benefit to their country. host: matt koch of the u.s. chamber of commerce, thank you for being with us. have a nice christmas. guest: thank you. host: we are going to turn our attention to the issue of religion and politics. we will get the perspective from barry lynn, the executive director of the americans united for the separation of church and state. he will be joining us in a couple of minutes. later, author robert kaplan will be joining us. we want to ask him about mf
8:32 am
global and the testimony of former governor and former mf global executive jon corzine of whether or not there was a separation of the funds used. that is all coming up on "washington journal." we are also keeping track of other stories. good morning, nancy. >> good morning. more on the impasse over tax cut extensions. the white house released examples of personal testimony from americans of what it would mean to them to lose $40 from their paycheck, the president said on the issue "everyone should see what $40 means for folks." c-span radio will air his remarks live at 12:15.
8:33 am
republican senator john mccain also weighing in on the issue. the senator says it congress failure to reach an agreement on legislation for working americans "hurt the republican party." he went on to say this is really tragic for the american people and next november, no incumbent is save. the report to congress is due today on arlington national cemetery's review in the accuracy of its grave sites. the order was ordered after some people were identified. in the wrong place or misidentified. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend, three days of american history tv on c-span3. visit the congressional ceremony on american artifacts. and a professor on american
8:34 am
prosperity in the 1950's and 1960's. monday at 8:00 a.m., highlights of the coverage of the 70th anniversary of the japanese attack on pearl harbor. and the history of native american military service. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. for this year's c-span student can video competition, we want you to tell us what part of the constitution has meaning for you n y. get it to c-span by january 20, 2012, for a chance to win a grand prize of $5,000. videon's student cam documentary competition. for complete details, go online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is one of the
8:35 am
programs where the conversation continues, the issue of religion and politics. barry lynn is the executive director of the americans united for the separation of church and state. following up on a conversation we had here at the table yesterday. you saw the program. of our guests give us their perspective on religion and politics and set the stage for what we want you to react to. this is a part of the conversation. this is what they had to say. >> i think we are a pluralistic society which means religious liberty is important for all of our traditions and for those who have no faith at all. that is critical. if secular means ideologies that is agions ,
8:36 am
different part of society. >> we are a pluralistic nation with a secular government. 85% of americans claim some sort of christian faith. we are a religious country within a secular government. the government should not take sides. the government should not be coaching or centering religion. it should not be sponsoring religion or attempting to suppress religion. it should in sure everyone has the opportunity to practice their faith without interference from others. host: yesterday's conversation is available on the website at c-span.org. guest: we are certainly a very pluralistic country with over 2000 unidentifiable religions in this country. we certainly have that level of diversity.
8:37 am
what we need to maintain is a secular government. i wish he would put into practice some of the positions he articulated yesterday. we need a government that is neutral on matters of religion, not taking sides or giving a special blessing to some religions over others. unfortunately, so many political leaders these days have decided to weigh in on the side of the majority of religion, christianity, and america. for many of us who are christians, we do not need the government's help. host: yet if you look at our constitution, we certainly have the freedom of speech and separation of church and state, but for many, religion is one of those foundations that make up who we are as a country. guest: there is no doubt about that but the one thing the
8:38 am
government cannot weigh in on his religion. they can make decisions about what languages we can print are signs in, what kind of economic system we have, but they cannot make decisions about religion. approving of some or disapproving of others, or in any way supporting one over the others. that is the core of what it is to be a secular country. unfortunately, these days, we are moving far away from that. host: should we have "in god we trust" on american currency? guest: probably not. we managed to get through world war i and ii, out of the great depression, having a purely secular "pledge of allegiance."
8:39 am
we can do without those things. this is not the biggest deal in america. it is one more symbol of how difficult it is for people, including those in political office, to say or do anything that suggests that they are anti-religious. earlier this fall in the midst of economic crisis, the house of representatives reaffirmed "in god we trust" as in national motto. why was this necessary? it is simply not. host: we are talking to barry lynn, executive director of the americans united for the separation of church and state. he graduated from boston
8:40 am
university. is their a god? guest: i certainly think there is but i also understand why people think there is no god or multiple gods. this does not bother me. if they want to talk to me or be evangelical about their beliefs, that is fine. i would like to think that if i said i do not want to hear any more that they would stop. i would not want the government to take a position and decide that is going to be the religion that is promoted. these things do come up. there is a school board in texas that the came primarily buddhist in a vietnamese fishing village. they decided they were going to have a buddhist prayer at the beginning of every school day. i believe they went to the aclu
8:41 am
of texas to try to find some way to stop school prayer. if it had been a christian prayer, unfortunately, i do not think the christians would have objected at all. we have to be consistent. john f. kennedy said "i believe in america where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no catholic would tell the president should he be a catholic how to act, and no protestant minister would tell their parishioners who to vote." aboutlet's talk presidential politics and two of the leading contenders, mitt romney and newt gingrich. last friday, the issue that we talked about a moment ago with barry lynn about "in god we trust." this is what the former
8:42 am
massachusetts governor had to say. >> i know some people who would like to make this nation a totally secular nation. it is a little hard given the fact that our founding document, the declaration of independence, notes that we were in doubt by our creator with certain unalienable rights. how do you take god out of america when the declaration points out it is god who gives those rights in the first place? i believe we should be able to have a religious ornamentation and celebration in a public square. whether that is in major or menorah or representative of other faiths, it is important for us to recognize that we look to god for many of our blessings. host: mitt romney who is disputing the premise of your organization.
8:43 am
guest: yes, he is. unfortunately for him, he is wrong about this. the declaration of independence is not the founding document of the country. the founding document of the country is the constitution. of the constitution makes no reference to god and deliberately so. the original constitution before we had a first amendment separation ofthe searc church and state. this idea that the declaration it is a terribly important press release to the world saying we are serious about our revolutionary instance, that is what happened. thomas jefferson used phrases in the declaration of independence because he did not want people to believe this would be an atheist country.
8:44 am
atheism was having quite a run in europe at the time. he did not want people to assume this was a christian nation. he certainly did not believe that. he did not believe the miracle stories in the bible. most founders of this country were hardly the kind of people you would see at voter conferences you see every fall. host: let me ask you about the faith-based initiatives put forth by president obama and george bush as a way to help offset government programs for those that are in social need. guest: it is wrong. in practice, what is happened in both administrations and continues to this day, government is giving tax dollars to institutions that discriminate. the tax dollars of you, me, and
8:45 am
millions of others could be going to an organization that says we will take your money but we will not accept the civil rights framework of the country. we will discriminate in hiring even in this tax-funded programs. 58 organizations just a few weeks ago saying you as a candidate, president obama, said he would do away with this discriminatory hiring. you have not. three years have passed. unfortunately, he has not done this. when you see the republican candidates moving further and further into this campaign, it lures people to talk more about religion and to do things that he thinks might help him with moderate to conservative evangelicals. host: if you are interested in americans united for the
8:46 am
separation of church and state, the website is q-- you can also send us an e-mail. this is from newt gingrich from sunday. the issue of judges, activist judges, and the role this plays in religion politics. >> we have had rulings that have outlawed school prayer, the cross, the 10 commandments, a secular drive to radicalize this country. what got me into this is "one nation under god" was on constitutional. there is something profoundly wrong that the judicial system that is moved to that kind of extreme. >> your reaction?
8:47 am
guest: he said it was wrong about all of these things. we tried to stop a high school graduation from introducing a variety of religious elements. all the judge was doing in that case was to say we do not turn the public school graduation into a religious exercise. we do not want anyone to feel like a second-class citizen at a graduation in a public-school. newt gingrich when to say that he would ask congress to hold u.s. marshals to bring them to congress to explain their roles. this is a total disrespect of the separation of powers. i know he thinks he is a fine historian, but he is looking at the history of some other
8:48 am
planet. host: give a brief history of the americans united for the separation of church and state. guest: it was formed back in 1998 by those who thought one of the core principles of the country was to keep distance between government and religion. it is an operative now for 62 years. we try firmly without regard to partisanship to critique candidates no matter what their party is only on the basis of their positions on preserving the sentiment of the first amendment. host: do you consider yourself a religious person? guest: yes, absolutely. i am an ordained minister and part of the bar. host: we will go to steve from
8:49 am
indiana. good morning. caller: religion should be totally out of government. if a church gets their nose into the politics, they should lose their tax exemptions because they should not be in their. you know, there are a lot of people out there if they had their way, all we would be doing is worshiping god and that there would not be any muslims or jews or anything the way they look at it. guest: steve, unfortunately you are right about that. many want this government to be established as a christian government which is inconsistent with the constitution. under the tax law, no charity
8:50 am
can endorse or oppose candidates for public office and retain their tax exemption. unfortunately, congress tries to do away with the prohibition but it is a small price to pay to not intervene into partisan politics. do not endorse or oppose candidates. a small price to pay for the lucrative value of a federal tax exemption. host: we are a transparent network. my comments saying that your joke was funny, won the were saying "that was not a good one." caller: good morning. i would like to hear what the guest has to say about the religion of the founding fathers. if it was my understanding that thomas jefferson was hardly the evangelical christian that they make these people out to be.
8:51 am
it is my understanding that andrew jackson was asked to lead before a speech with a prayer and he refused, saying that was entanglement. i was in iowa and we hear these ads for newt gingrich and rick perry, and it makes me sick of these evangelicals have hijacked our beloved party. host: thank you. guest: not only that but it is certainly true -- james madison was a strict separation nest. one of the census questions was are you a member of the clergy. he objected to it even asking the question. into jackson would not during a cholera epidemic issue a national day of prayer. thomas to evers and refused to declare a national days of
8:52 am
prayer even when the congress sent two resolutions. there was a campaign ad by gov. rick perry just about two weeks ago. that said that president obama was not religious and suggested there was a real war on christmas going on. as of yesterday, that ad put up on youtube had 700,000- reactions. you can vote thumbs up or thumbs down. the third largest number of negative reactions to anything posted in the history of youtube. it is not just because of the governor. it is because people like yourself are tired of this appearing to be an election for deciding who should be the next pastor of the baptist church instead of who should be the next commander in chief to
8:53 am
appoint justices to the united states supreme court. host: there are two follow ups. we do have a national prayer breakfast dating back to dwight eisenhower attending the event. president obama has attended for the last three years. guest: it is not unconstitutional for a president to go to a national prayer breakfast but i do not think they should go to this one run by a group that has a very aggressive agenda and very bad unconstitutional domestic positions. two years ago, they were involved in helping to train a gentleman in uganda in the legislature who opposed the death penalty in the country. this is activity that should be shunned. there are plenty of other charges on that day who would be
8:54 am
happy to have the president or the speaker of the house in attendance. of the national day of prayer as a legislative matter, one judge ruled it to be unconstitutional because what in the world could be the purpose of having a national day of prayer unless you having the government suggest this is a date to pray harder, longer, or faster. one of the test whether an act is constitutional is whether it promotes religion. that certainly does. sadly, the judge was overruled because she said the people who brought the lawsuit did not have the legal authority to get into court to challenge it. the appeals court said the president could do so to sign a declaration that this was a national day of prayer. host: if you are joining us on
8:55 am
c-span radio in the baltimore- washington area or coast to coast, our guest is barry lynn, the executive director of the americans united for the separation of church and state. the caller also brought up one of the advertisements from rick perry. this is the one he was referring to. >> i am not ashamed to commit i am a christian, but you do not need to be in church every sunday to know that gays can be in the millet. open. as president, i will and obama's war on religion and fight against liberal attacks on our heritage. faith made america strong. it can make her strong again. i am rick. . i approve this message. guest: this is not the way we should be running campaigns in the united states. host: it makes up about 60% of
8:56 am
those who will show up on january 3 in iowa. guest: you should be able to say the same thing to multiple groups if you have a principled position. you should articulate it. so many of these people get more religious when they are talking to a religious audience. ron paul last october gave a speech saturday morning in which he said all of his policies, tax policies, foreign policies, his beliefs about military strategy, all based on the bible along with his views objecting to and opposing abortion. here was a guy who's admitted all of his issues are based on the bible. we should not be making decisions based on anyone's interpretation of any wholly text. host: rebecca joining us from
8:57 am
virginia. good morning. the independent line. caller: i will try to make my comments brief. the declaration of independence never rescinded or amended its stand. it is an existential document. separation of church and state is not in the constitution. it was written by jefferson. third, the notion that people of faith are not allowed to speak their faith is -- has a chilling effect on our first amendment rights. to say that we are not allowed to speak our word or make our decisions based on our faith -- it is appalling really. how can you support the first
8:58 am
amendment and then tell people they must be silent? guest: rebecca, i am just telling politicians that they have to turn to the real founding document, the constitution, to make decisions. if they say i am not going to make a decision until i checked out the interpretation of the bible, that is not the way to run a secular government. no one is stopping private citizens from doing anything. i object to putting up a nativity scene outside of a courthouse, but i certainly do not object to the fact that my neighbors have nativity scenes in their front yard. i do not object to the fact that churches put up a nativity scene, jesus, baby jesus, wisemen, all of that outside their church.
8:59 am
i want that to be the free expression of religion in this country. the best way to destroy a religion is to get government involved in the business of helping us promote it. if we are christians, we should be doing that ourselves. it is inconceivable to me how much anger was directed to the governor of rhode island because he decided that he was going to call the evergreen tree "the, for fora hanukkah tree instead of a christmas tree. all he did was trying to be inclusive, representative of all of those 2000 religions and the tens of millions of non- believers. there is nothing wrong with that. host: this tweet --
9:00 am
guest: franklin had a mixed record about religion. he encourage people to read the bible for some of its ethical teachings although frankly he did not necessarily follow them himself. there were not a lot of books it was hard to find "to kill a mockingbird" 200 years ago because it had not been written yet. host: jerome, pronounced the name of your pennsylvania town. caller: is southwest of pittsburgh. host: welcome to the program. caller: thank you for taking my call, and think the cable companies for c-span. host: thank you, we appreciate that. go ahead, jerome. caller: i have a comment that it
9:01 am
has been my thinking for some time that organized religion is the cause or the backdrop of every war that has ever been fought. i will take my answer or comment off the air. thank you. guest: jerome, i do not know if you can prove that it is the cause of every war, but it has been a very big factor in many of the war's throughout the world, some of which we are involved with as a country, some of which are worth between other nations. you can look into the bible and find justification. i have a 600-page book on my desk called "politics according to the bible." it professes to explain on every public policy issue what the single biblical position is down to which fighter planes the air force should have purchased. the gentleman says it's
9:02 am
unbelievable that the air force cut the f-22 rafter program. if that is the decision making progress -- process used by american politicians, we are on very shaky ground. host: bob from los angeles, republican line, welcome to the program. caller: good morning. the separation of church and state does not exist in the united states anymore due to the fact that all backroom deals in the white house, and congress make with all these faith-based groups, faith-based groups and it is amazing how the religious nuts are just going rampant nowadays. it is nauseating how far they are willing to go now. it has no place in politics or
9:03 am
law. guest: bob, something else has happened this year that makes things even worse. until herman cain dropped out of the race, we had four people running for the nomination of one major political party who believed that god had chosen them to be the next president. now we are down to three. i am not a great math student, but as a matter of statistics, if three people at a minimum still feel that way, two of them are wrong. to find a candidate who says my wife heard a message from god that i'm supposed to be the united states president and i'm running. it is extraordinary to hear this kind of rhetoric attached to all of these proposals to move us further and further into the endorsement of religion for national leaders.
9:04 am
host: this is a tweet saying "pat robertson gets instructions from god. do you have god's e-mail address?" guest: i hope that same person does not write and say that is not a good joke either. pat robertson usually reports his wisdom from god in the first week of january. i must say pat robertson, the religious right that he represents, has not gone away. a lot of people said after the obama election at least we do not have to worry about the religious right again. the religious right, top-10 organizations, have expanded $350 million to $400 million on their legislative activities in the last year of reporting, back in 2009.
9:05 am
that is an extraordinary amount of money to promote a single interpretation of the bible and turn that into the policies of the united states, particularly on hot topics like abortion, a subject that is not even addressed in the christian bible. host: as a theologian, this tweet. "asked this guy what happens after death." guest: i have to admit that i'm not sure what happens after death, and of course there are various interpretations in the bible itself. jesus at one point suggests that his father's mansion has many rooms, you will get into that room as soon as you die. at other times, he seems to be promoting the idea of a long pause and literally bodily resurrection. theologians from the first to theologians like myself have different opinions and cannot answer all these questions. host: carroll joins us from
9:06 am
rockaway, new jersey, on the independent line. caller: mr. lynn, as far as i'm aware, the constitution guarantees us freedom of religion, not from religion. thank you. guest: carol, i have heard that many times, and i do not think we have a guarantee against religion. that is to say if somebody is religious or sets up a church in your neighborhood and you do not like it, and there is not much you can do about it, nor should you be able to do anything about it. but when the government gets into the business of embracing one church over another, someone's interpretation of the bible to make policy for your life and everyone, and 20 to 25 million nonbelievers, then we have a problem because the constitution also says that the congress and, because we passed the 14th amendment, the states cannot make rules respecting an
9:07 am
establishment of religion, touching upon this religious issue. religious neutrality is what the constitution demands, and i think we are a stronger country when we appreciate that fact. host: joe asks this question. "should christmas be a federal holiday?" guest: i think the horse, the cow, and the pigs are out of the bar on that one. frankly, courts have looked at this idea and said so few people would be at work if it were not a federal holiday, it has gotten this secular veneer and no one is thinking about changing it. i think that of course has left. host: democrats line from texas, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. mr. lynn, every word you have uttered is what i want to say.
9:08 am
i have one thing i would like to point out and maybe you can affect it on polls. do you think the country is going the wrong way? i am a liberal democrat, and my answer is yes. that is because we have lost all compassion and humanity, and i do blame it on the rise of the religious right. i would like to see that question changed. it is not the policies of the president for me, it is the lack of humanity and walking your own shoes. if the question were offered, maybe more people would think about it. right now if i say yes, people think i do not like the president, and that is not true at all. do you understand what i'm saying? please articulate it for me. guest: i think it is a very good idea because polling questions do not often get to the nuance
9:09 am
of what they really mean, allowing people to make decisions about who is wrong, talking about the direction of the country, and making people, including the pollsters, have them assume what those answers mean. i think in polling, the closer we are to explaining very specifically what people want, the more likely we are to get good answers. for example, on that faith-based initiative we talked about recently, 2/3 of the american people in poll after poll, if you ask them specifically, if the government gives money to a religious group, should it be allowed to discriminate in hiring, giving special deference to people who think like they do, 2/3 of americans say no. 2/3 of americans also say pastor's should not endorse candidates from the pulpit. -- also say pastors should not
9:10 am
endorse candidates from the pulpit. the more specific questions you ask, the more you learn about what is really on people's minds. host: do not normally talk about other networks, but there has been a lot of attention in the blogosphere about fox news. "fox & friends" in the morning taking aim at governor lincoln chafee, and in oklahoma where they change to the christmas parade of flights to the holiday parade of lights, fox very critical of that change. what are your thoughts? guest: as an occasional visitor to the fox news channel, this is total nonsense. there is no war against christmas. i would like to find someone who does not believe in the fundamental equivalent of the bat cave that there is a holiday
9:11 am
going up, it is called christmas, and if they drive past the local church, they somehow know that on december 24 and december 25 there is some very important kind of religious activity going on there. i frequently say to people if you're a christian and you want to communicate your face, do not ask the government to declare some kind -- to communicate your faith, do not ask the government to declare some kind of special holiday, go across the neighborhood to your neighbors and say would you like to hear some good music, would you like to come along? that evangelicalism is -- that is good evangelicalism. host: "are there any out of the closet agnostics in the senate or in the house?" guest: the starts in california.
9:12 am
beyond that, it is hard to find anybody taking that position. host: "asked barry lynn if there's any candidate that he believes -- if there's any republican candidate that he believes would respect the concept of the separation of church and state." guest: i do not endorse candidates, and i have not heard anyone suggest that separation of church and state are high on his agenda. governor romney did say once that he thought it was silly to worry about sharia law taking over the united states. there's an article about this whole movement in "the new york times" this morning. that is not what is putting this nation at risk of losing its secular morning. what is putting that at risk frankly is the fact that so many of these religious right activists -- 20% of the american electorate defines itself as a member of the
9:13 am
religious right -- they want to take certain christian beliefs they have and turn those into the rule of law in america. it's not like the muslim tiny minority is going to interject sure real lot into the constitution of oklahoma. host: you have sparked quite a debate on line where the emails are coming in. fort worth, texas, republican line, the morning. guest: if there is a christian right, there must be a pagan left. host: a lot of people would say that with jesus, with emphasis of helping the poor, jesus would be a person from the left. i do not want jim wallace's interpretation of the bible, or richard land, the two guests on
9:14 am
at the same time yesterday. i do not want them turning their theological beliefs into public policy. we need to look at freedom of the press, equal treatment under the law. these are principles, values, and they do not derive from any one theological position. they are held by the great bulk of americans, and that is what politicians should turn to to make decisions. host: from andrew, omaha, nebraska. "what is mr. lynn's position on the pair indications that take place before each session of congress?" guest: i think the senate chaplain has an assistant, a big office. so many people here locally around capitol hill would be happy to volunteer for that job, and in fact then they would not have to have a paid chaplain in the first place. in fact, long ago when newt gingrich took over as house
9:15 am
speaker, bob livingston was the second or third in charge of the republicans, and he briefly considered doing away with the paid chaplaincy. mr. gingrich said that time said that would make us look nonreligious, and of course quashed the deal even though it would have saved some money. host: "what does mr. lynn think about islam?" guest: i think it is a major faith, a faith practiced in peace by most muslims certainly in the united states and indeed around the world. unfortunately, the few radicals who are engaged in activity, criminal activity, terrorist activity, seem to paint this entire religion, and that is a most unfortunate thing and leads to these silly arguments like sharia law is about to take over america. host: our next call is sally from pittsburgh, independent line. good morning.
9:16 am
caller: good morning. i had the pleasure of attending ynn sevenwith mr. whel years ago. about veryo ask complex problems regarding jewish people. when mr. land talked about a jewish representatives in congress, he said -- he referred to them as a religion. now, jewish people have a dual identity. many call themselves secular jews because israel calls itself a jewish state. there is also a marginal was and, therefore. that is one of the complexities in thinking about jew and
9:17 am
and being anti-semitic if you criticize political activity. and the religious component, sentimental cover and robust critical analysis of what is taking place politically. host: thank you for the call. we will get a response. guest: certainly there are secular jews, and they like to read -- and christians who have bought out of the theological ideas. i think we can have a robust debate without trying to take positions on the truth, the falsity, the veracity of anybody's religion. one of the things i find so i, i remember once active in the late dr. jerry falwell in one of
9:18 am
my hundreds of appearances with him over the decade. he was not just promoting a christian agenda, he said, at a press conference that day he had had a rabbi there. i asked dr. falwell, "will that rabbi be going to have an?" and he literally would not address the question put -- "will that rabbi be going to heaven?" and he literally would not address that question. if you ask them, waiting minute, will jews go to heaven? they will say of course not, unless they accept jesus as their savior. host: our guest is the author and co-author of a number of books, including "piety in politics: the religious right's
9:19 am
assault on politics." and a tweeter who is somewhat critical of your sense of humor. "great guest. this is informative." republican line. savannah, georgia, good morning. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call and thank you for c-span. earlier i heard you say you're a lawyer as well. i did happen to attend court hearings and testify as a witness. my question is, i have to place my hand on a bible. is that -- if i were an atheist and i put my hand on a bible and i was ordered to put my hand -- to tell the truth, would you believe me? guest: a name like lynn i
9:20 am
would be forced to believe you. most courts have tried to do away with that because of the diversity in this country. if you are a believer but a believer in a different religious system than the judeo- christian face, you might also object to affirming -- the judeo-christian faith, you also might object to a firming truth on a bible. in many state constitutions, you could not run for office unless you were a christian. that has been done away with most recently in states like south carolina and tennessee. we're making progress, but unfortunately when it comes to politicians, they are regressing deeply and very far from the principles of john kennedy, an absolute separation of church and state at the cornerstone of his administration and of his system of how american needs to be governed. host: we will conclude on that point. barry lynn is the executive
9:21 am
director of americans united for the separation of church & state. we appreciate your time. come back again. guest: i will. host: you can continue the conversation on our facebook page. a lot of you continue to send in your tweets. the book is called "what to ask a person in the mirror," written by robert steven kaplan. we will also talk about ms global and some of the earlier testimony this month -- mf global. it is thursday morning, a couple of days before christmas. for what is happening on capitol hill, jobless numbers, and other stories from the c-span radio studios, which carries this program every morning. >> yes, jobless numbers this hour from the labor department showed a number of people applying for the benefits dropped last week to the lowest level since april of 2008.
9:22 am
extending a downward trend shows the job market strengthening. the average has decreased in 11 of the past 13 weeks. the commerce department reports the u.s. economy grew more slowly in the summer than previously thought because consumers spent less than reported in initial estimates. economists expect growth in the current quarter to be stronger. an update on the pakistani troops killed last month near the afghan border. the pentagon report released today says u.s. forces "acted in self-defense and with appropriate force after being fired upon, based upon the information to them at the time." the investigation also finds, "that there was no intentional effort to target persons are places known to be part of the pakistani military." the pentagon hold a briefing on this report this morning. you can hear it later today on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend, three days of
9:23 am
american history tv on c-span3. saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, visit the national cemetery. sunday evening at 7:30, meet the white house chef dating back to the carter administration. monday at 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., coverage of the anniversary of the japanese attack on pearl harbor. and the history of the animal chimeras there -- and native american military service. all we can, every weekend, on c- span3. three days of booktv this weekend. on "after words," the failed coup that led to mchale gorbachev's resignation.
9:24 am
-- to mikhail gorbachev's resignation. and on colonel teddy roosevelt. the news editor for publishers marketplace on the best sellers of 2011. monday at 7:00 p.m. tom brokaw monday at 8:30 p.m. eastern. the full booktv schedule is online booktv.org. host: we want to welcome in robert kaplan, the vice chair of goldman sachs, they offer -- author of the new book "what to ask the person in the mirror." i want to begin with the testimony of john corzine, -- of jon corzine, the former chair of mf plan will and -- of mf global and the former governor
9:25 am
of new jersey. >> i simply do not know where the money is or why the accounts have not been reconciled today. as the chief executive officer of the mf global holding company, and ultimately had responsibility for the firm. i did not involve myself in the mechanics or the region in the clearing and selling of trades, nor was i an expert on complicated rules and regulations governing the various different operating businesses. host: from your vantage point, what happened, and would he have known or should he have known? guest: i do not know what happened. i read the same articles and have been surprised the same way as everyone else at what has happened. the fact of the matter is, when you're the ceo -- in my career, when you run a financial- services business, which i did,
9:26 am
you own what goes on in that business. what you have to do is assemble a team, pre procedures so that you can sleep at night. you cannot know everything, but you have to set up the business and you are comfortable and confident that things are being done the right way. so how this could have happened, i am as stunned by it as anybody because these are critical things when you run a broker- dealer. the most obvious thing, i'm surprised about something that is not a secret. i am surprised they were leveraged 35-1. if we have learned anything in the last 10 years, if you're a leveraged 30 or 35 to one, it is a matter of time before you have a problem if you're in the trading business, and if you have concentrated bets and your leveraged 35-one, that is not going to work. this is why most of the major brawl street firms -- in fact, i
9:27 am
saw the bill yesterday that updated died-franc -- don frank, and i think you'll see these the leveraged far less than that. if 35-1 is extraordinarily high leverage. i did not think any firm was allowed to be that highly leveraged. you cannot be in this turbulent world and survive, particularly when you're relying completely on wholesale funding. you have to access the market. you will have a problem eventually. host: in layman's terms, there was supposed to be a division between the way the money was used and investors' money. can you explain the mechanics of that? guest: investor funds are sacred. there are all sorts of
9:28 am
procedures, safeguards. i am not aware of this happening. there is a reason you have not heard of this happening before. there are safeguards at every firm follows, and the reason you have these safeguards -- this happens one time, like at mf global, you can imagine every other customer of every other big broker is asking themselves, should i be comfortable having my money there? it undermines confidence in the entire system. host: were laws broken, potentially? guest: i do not know. i have said this before. when you see things at a distance, and i do not understand this, i have got more questions, i'm not worrying about throwing accusations. i have got questions, as do people in congress. those investigating have a series of questions, and some of those questions they are asking themselves. should they have done something
9:29 am
differently as regulators. the regulations are split up between different entities, but they probably need to go back and reexamine that, too. at large's take a look institutions, whether wall street, congress, the presidency. i want to talk about the debate going on this week on the payroll tax. and every poll, there is a distrust of institutions. we saw this with the financial collapse of on wall street. now we're seeing it with congress at an all-time low. guest: there are two things going on preferred stock, i would argue, over many decades -- there aren't two things going on. -- there are two things going on. how to make a positive impact on a customer or a client, the fact of the matter is we have got many leaders in this country doing that every day who have
9:30 am
got a very clear vision, are trying to make a positive impact on the world. what happened while all this was going on, we allowed ourselves to get unacceptably highly leveraged as a country. our institutions were highly leveraged, our government is over leveraged, and the fact is time has run out on using leverage as a way to stimulate and create economic growth. we need to be leverage. our leaders need to explain that, and the reason that there's so much of a loss of confidence, and the reason you're seeing all this partisan fighting is both sides know we are now to the point where we have got to face reality and make tough decisions. we are watching it in europe. they are actually doing it. we have not even started it, in my opinion. means entitlement reform, cutting spending and raising some taxes. right now nobody wants to --
9:31 am
both sides have taken pledges not to do some of those things. that is not going to work. host: but they cannot even agree on a tax cut for two months or even the full year. guest: when you do not have a clear vision for the country, ok, what you fall tattoo is tactical sniping. i would argue this two months vs one year fight over the payroll tax is just tactical sniping. we know they are going to pass something. we know this is just showmanship right now, and the fact of the matter is, how does this help rebuild the middle class, build our country so we are a leader in the world? this is a distraction from it. that is easier for politicians when they are not called on it. host: the washington post, "the best solution would be for the embattled speaker of the house, john boehner, to back away from
9:32 am
the cliff to which the rebellious caucus has driven him and agree to the senate bill in exchange for a promise from the senate to return in early january and have a con -- and have conferees work on a yearlong extension." guest: it is an interesting story about tactics. one year, two months -- it does not solve the problem. how does it help build this country, reduce the deficit, create jobs, and make us a leader in the world? this is all tactical fighting, a distraction from the big issues. they actually have to get at a lot of things, that the full commission raised. entitlement reform, tax reform, more tax revenue, and other changes. this is a side show. host: let me stay on the tactics, and we will talk about what needs to be done long term. here is what the speaker of the
9:33 am
house said yesterday, and we will follow-up with steny hoyer from maryland. >> we are ready to go to work, and we're hoping that senate democrats will appoint negotiators, come to the table, and resolve this. i think it is important to note that the president, bipartisan leaders in the house, bipartisan leaders in the senate have all really asked for the same thing over the course of the last several months. let's examine the payroll tax, and all we're asking for is to get the senate members to work with us to resolve our differences so we can do whatever everybody wants to do. >> this is not a game. why are you all here? why are we unable to communicate to the -- what are we able to communicate to the american public. because we went to the floor to speak to the american people in
9:34 am
the house of representatives. unfortunately, the speaker pro tem walked off the floor. they shut off the camera. they wanted to shut us down. host: robert kaplan, obviously tactics, but tactics that have either produce results or in this case no results. guest: i personally believe the payroll tax cut needs to extended in a very weak economy, but that is just a tactical bridge to give us time to do with the big issues. see, we have gotten so used to in this country, that is all our politicians are doing, dealing with clever tactics. these guys are very clever on both sides, professionals. they know who gets sound bites and poll ratings. but it is not -- it has not got much to do with solving the problem of the country. what a waste of energy. i wish they were using the same energy on tactics to talk about real entitlement reform and
9:35 am
other things that would actually build this country. infrastructure spending, other programs that would build this country and create jobs. the payroll tax needs to be extended, but it is a short-term tactical fix. host: their leadership in the white house? guest: i would like to see more. when i talk with leadership, it starts with what is the vision for the country? i think there is confusion about possibleident obama poppe vision is. vision president obama's is. in january of 2011, he basically backed away from recommendations. host: why? guest: tactical. i'm guessing, as an observer, that at the white house they said it was a tactical thing to
9:36 am
do. it took him out of dealing with the budget deficit for all of 2011. the republicans start with their own plan and their own vision, and then we have the fiasco of august. the biggest present obama mistake was health-care, but i do not think so. it was not following the recommendations of his own commission at a time when everyone in this country knows now we have got to reduce the debt and the deficit of the country. he did not take a strong stand, and that created confusion of where he is on this. host: robert kaplan, formerly of goldman sachs, and the author of "what to ask the person in the mirror." michele is on the phone. little neck, new york. good morning. caller: thank you very much. i'm just so sick and tired of these politicians who are, as
9:37 am
your guest said, through tactical maneuvers, severely hurting the rest of us. there are no jobs. i have been unemployed for close to a year-and-a-half, two years. i see these politicians throwing mud in each other's eyes, and they do not care who it hurts, people like me who are out of work. people like the people they have seen occupy. when is it going to stop? all i hear is grumpy bitching about who is paying taxes. they have it so much easier than the rest of us. we have to work and get very little for what we do. meanwhile, the very rich and the so-called job creators are getting away and making billions and billions of dollars. i want to ask you, what does he think about that? guest: i think that your caller is very representative of the
9:38 am
mood in the country. i have not talked to anybody out there -- business leaders all the way through the society at every kind of position -- no one is happy with this. ultimately, though, it is up to the voters, in my opinion. we are trying to do our part. when i face up to the voters, for every candidate, i would ask and to answer the following question -- what would you do on retirement -- on entitlement reform, what do you want to do on taxes? show us your numbers and how you address jobs and rebuilding the middle class. we do not want to hear snippets, clever tactics. we want to hear what your plan is, and please explain to us what it is. right now you don't hear much talk about that, even in the presidential debates. you hear a lot of tactical points and side issues, but you do not hear a lot about the comprehensive plan to rebuild the middle class, create jobs, that includes all the elements that need to be discussed.
9:39 am
host: joe is next, middletown new jersey. you're on with robert kaplan, a republican line. caller: in particular, why isn't anybody in jail from mf global? guest: i do not know, but it would not surprise me. i read the same articles you do, but the people involved in this are going to have issues to deal with personally, and there will be problems for all of them based on what happened, i would guess. i do not wish that on anyone, but what happens here is unprecedented. i am sure the regulators and other authorities are actively investigating, and you will see more of this. host: we have seen this pattern with wall street companies with investment firms the last five to seven years. what is happening? guest: you have to separate
9:40 am
these things out. the investment firms were over leveraged, and they were wrong. there are people who did things they should not have done, and there were people who were dead wrong. what was the most fundamental thing they were wrong on? they assumed housing prices would not go down. they sold all the securities, created securitization switch should never have been done. the ratings agencies blessed them. they were based on the preventions that the house prices never go down. the head of the fed, ben bernanke, said he thought was very unlikely that house prices would deteriorated substantially. why did he say that? because all the historical data suggests that they do not tend to go down. they were all wrong, all dramatically over leveraged. and there was little or no effective regulation. there was not effective regulation. we are now dealing with it. whether somebody did something illegal or criminal, i actually
9:41 am
think most of the problems that happened were legal, but they were ill-advised and did not make sense. host: next is elaine joining us from roxbury, connecticut, on the independent line. caller: my question is why are you talking about entitlements? you are saying that people need to look at the entitlements, but you, on wall street, and in banks have been policymakers forever. you have been telling our government elected what they are going to do, and they have allowed you take the wealth and convert it to you. and hide it somewhere. you are talking about entitlements, entitlements. that money is what people have paid in their whole lives, and they were forced to pay it in
9:42 am
because the government says you have to pay it in. host: thanks, elaine. guest: this is why tidal reform is such an explosive issue. i have been suggesting this for years and people on wall street have been suggesting this for years. raise the retirement age two or three years. means test the benefits. those would be two changes that would not hurt anyone that has worked and paid in their entire life. raising the retirement age for future retirees, or changing the benefits if someone is very wealthy. they will get less benefits. those are two examples of what i'm talking about when i say entitlement reform. this is one comment i would make about the country. when we throw out these headlines, you get people launch into their own quarters and there is a lot of vitriol. when you actually go to potential solutions and explain
9:43 am
the issue, i think you have a very good chance to get a consensus among people because their reaction is, "oh, that is what you're talking about." that is what retirement -- that is what entitlement reform means. it does not mean taking benefits away from people. we have to address this. we have to raise the retirement age and mean test the benefits. so people who have paid in can make sure that we are solvent so that they can collect benefits. host: from your book, "leadership is not about having all the answers, it is more often about having the courage to ask the critical questions." then you ask this question, "how do you go about improving your ability to be a more outstanding executive leader? is this something you can learn , can it be taught? how did the great ones do it?" host: idea with lots of leaders
9:44 am
today in business, government, with governors and other federal officials. if i did a quiz of 100 people who are respected and asked what they thought leadership was, i would get 100 different answers. many police -- many people leave that they would have the answers because they are expected to have the answers. they think they have to be charismatic, have all these qualities. maybe because they saw a role model who did it, someone they saw on television. my view is not that at all. i seldom see the leader that was born. leadership has to be learned. the most critical criterion is to open the still learning and a willingness to ask questions. if you are the smartest person in the room and you're the most talented person, that is not easy to do. you are used to having the answers. but very smart and talented people have to learn to be willing to ask for help, seek
9:45 am
advice, and realized maybe they do not know. saying i do not know is a good thing. saying i was wrong is a good thing. you have to be opened because the world is constantly changing. that is what i am trying to encourage people to do. that is what a strong leader does. host: but in this highly partisan town where you are either a republican or a democrat, can bipartisan ideas work, essentially with no liberals -- with no labels? guest: did not come here to be engaged in this brick throwing. but we have to change the rules of how congress works. we have come up with a plan. you can look on our website where we are talking about no pledges. if you are going to come to congress, do not take a pledge that you are going to ignore the
9:46 am
facts, either through grover norquist, i will not raise taxes, touch entitlements. the only place you should take is your oath of office. you have to be willing to engage and look reality and ask questions. we do not think congress people should be paid until they pass a budget. we think all presidential appointees should be voted up or down within 90 days. we think there should be a question time, and you get up and explain to the american people once a week why you are doing what you're doing. people in congress want this to work, so we're trying to push this and would like to see this get done. host: the u.s. debt clock continues to increase, now in excess of $15 trillion, the u.s. spending on average about $3 trillion. i mention the debt clock because it's your says, "what is it going to take to get a strategic -- because a viewer says, "what is it going to take
9:47 am
to the dates -- economic plan?" guest: determine what the top three or four priorities are. what makes this country great? we have to rebuild the middle class. i think we need to build our business leadership. i do not think the interest of the middle class and business are at odds, even though the politicians and the media might suggest it at times. i think they're intertwined. we have to build our role in the world and build our infrastructure, which is a key competitive edge. we are going to have to scut and cut programs. host: what would you cut? guest: on social security, we will have to it means test it and raise the retirement age. i think the fix for social security, if we all came together, people on both sides are willing to do something but
9:48 am
they keep waiting for the other side to do it first. because you hear the animus it involves per medicare and medicaid are tougher. i would not go as far as the paul ryan plan, but there are a number of plans on the table to deal with it and help limit growth. i think taxes have to go up, and in particular on those most able to pay. i do believe that the bush tax cuts need to get rolled back. many in congress have taken a pledge they will not raise taxes in any form. i want to see people argue taxes should not go up on the merits, not because they took a pledge. i think if you take entitlement reform, greater taxes, and other cuts, and then we need to make some investments in infrastructure and other things that will foster growth, it will not solve this in a year or two, but i think over 3, 5, and 10 years, that is an integrated plan that will ideally get us
9:49 am
through this, but it is going to be painful and we need a comprehensive plan. you cannot do just little snippets. host: but you know what some are going to say in this town. good luck trying to get that through. guest: well, it is our country. we are the voters. if we do not have leaders who can articulate it, if they do not like my vision, if we do not have leaders that can go through a comprehensive plan, i would argue we need to reelect leaders, have leaders that will come and do this. if that means they need to go, they should go. host: good morning to you come on the democrats' line, with robert kaplan. caller: good morning to you, gentlemen. i have worked in the banking industry, and i know that we are basically $15 trillion, i know how much that is. i do not want them to stay on the debt crisis because the main
9:50 am
bank and everything, that as $100 trillion plus that they can give in raw profit to develop the job skills and to fund leadership in this country. by now how are rock -- how barack works, and how it works on the floor. i saw it work on the floor before on a big easel, and they worked at all. mr. mccain was there, and the rest of them. we could pay a debt, but we have got way more value than $15 trillion. that is not jack. they should not stick us up for $15 trillion when they could pay off with a simple sales tax. i have done all the math so many times. i have to do these things. corporate leadership, i appreciate the meaning --
9:51 am
meeting honest corporate leaders. they bend over backwards to get people hired. guest: i know a lot of corporate leaders, big business, small business, and the person is right. they are leaders in their community. they do not like what is going on any better than everyone else in this country, and they want to make this place better. that is how they became leaders. they're trying to make the positive happen out there. as to the sales tax, the issue why it has not been adopted is it is for people who do -- who make less money, it is regressive. everybody would pay the same. if they are going to do a sales tax, there needs to be a way so it is not a heavier tax on lower income people who will pay more than their fair share of that burden. that is what has got to be worked out. there's probably a way to do it. it is one of the activities that
9:52 am
will get discussed. host: mike, republican line, you're on with robert kaplan. caller: good morning. i guess my point is that when president barack obama became president, i think he should have concentrated on keeping the americans working. i think that should have been the priority, the number 1 point of business for our politicians. we would not be in this kind of a predicament, looking for more revenue to keep our country going. i guess my point is that should have been a number one priority, keeping americans working. the american people, they do not want the government to create jobs for us. we want to keep the jobs that we got. it is a sad state of mind that
9:53 am
you have to rely on government to create jobs. host: mike, can i take your point, and can you stay on the line? i want to follow up with you. caller: yes. guest: i agree with him, by the way. host: in 2013 we will have a new election, a new congress. will anything change? guest: i am an eternal optimist. we need to rebuild the middle class, and i think the country is ready to do things. i think the country is more ready to be unified than the politicians give them credit for. i think things will change, and i do agree that i think that the entire first two years of the obama presidency, job creation, rebuilding our country, should have been job one. the one regret i have is i think
9:54 am
we have set up that there is -- it is mutually exclusive, what is good for business anis good r workers, is the for the economy. they are intertwined. i think the workers out there know it, and i think we need to be unified as a country to solve this problem. i think obama may have missed a great opportunity to unify the country. host: mike, do you think the election will change anything? caller: i am hoping it will. but, you know, we have a president -- regardless of who becomes president of our country, i think the american people should stand behind him. he is not going to make the right decisions all the time for everybody. stand behind him and try to help
9:55 am
him instead of criticizing him all the time. host: thanks for the call. appreciate your comments for more violent. you are on next with robert kaplan, author of "what to ask the person in the mirror." we go to jennifer. caller: i have a couple subject actually that he just touched on. you keep talking about entitlements and the middle class. what about the people that are $7.25 an hour,0 minimum-wage? you're talking about people who are entitled or whatever, making $100,000 a year. these big businesses, number one, are not in danger because of illegal people from other countries. all that money is getting sent out of this country.
9:56 am
host: your response? guest: i think median income in this country is $45,000, $50,000 a year. many people have slipped to where they cannot make that, and they are slipping out of that middle class. there is a significant population of people in this country that are working their tails off and they cannot make ends meet. many of them used leverage in the first part of this last decade to deal with it, and that is not possible. this is why investment in infrastructure and other programs, a pro-business attitude that fosters business growth in this country. my fear is business leaders i talk to in all sizes are hiring, not in the united states. why? they do not see the demand, and a one. number two, some of them feel
9:57 am
that the environment is not conducive to business growth and business leaders. there is no reason for that. i support president obama. i would like to see him unify the country. i want to see leaders in both parties unified the country. that means unions, workers, and leaders -- there vision is not mutually exclusive. on either side, it is better politics to make them feel they are at odds, but it is not going to build this country. host: as you look in the mirror and look at politics in this country and your involvement in no labels, what questions do you ask? guest: a similar question i have asked for many years, how can i make a positive impact? what can i do? what can i bring and what can i do? i have decided in the last couple of years, business
9:58 am
,eaders, nba's, writing a book speaking out. and i really making a difference? some days i'm not so sure, but i am trying. host: we appreciate you being here. ronnie joins us from atlanta, democrats line, with robert kaplan. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? the only time i see people on your talking about social security, they say the retirement age needs to be raised. every one in america does not work in a climate-controlled office. i can imagine a 60-1 -- a 61- year-old guy hanging off a garbage truck in january. guest: he is right. there are certain jobs you cannot work longer. when i think about these broad ideas, you have to get into the
9:59 am
details. there is a reason the retirement age is what it is and they become social security eligible. this needs to be all worked through, but that is the point. there are lots of issues, lots of elements to look at. my concern is, what are we doing. do you hear people agonizing over a solution for social security on both sides? no no, they are fighting on two months vs 12 months. this will take a lot of energy and a lot of focus. i want our leaders to do it. as part of no labels, i am saying we need to focus on the big issues. they are not easy, they are hard. when a host: you talk about the third rail of american politics -- host: when you talk about the third rail of american politics, those are it. such as attorney, medicare -- such as attorney, medicare --
178 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on