>> in the news today, new to gingrich and rick perry have been disqualified from virginia's presidential primary ballot. the former house speaker and the texas governor did not submit enough valid signatures and they joined a majority of gop candidates who failed to qualify for the march 6 virginia primary. only two republicans -- mitt romney and ron paul will be on the ballot. newt gingrich says he will campaign as a write-in. you can see more covers online c-span.org. and we will hear from congressman chris van hollen about the national tax cut and

more. >> i am here arguing in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy. i am a mulally 1%. >> i'm very -- i am a part of the 1%. >> this will not help anybody. >> you do not want to donate to the government? >> i want our class to be -- you have heard me -- you are being silly. >> i am a video journalist. i would say that what we're doing is sort of like citizen journalism. basically, when an individual who does not have that much training in journalism has the tools of modern technology to capture a live event. that does not have a background in journalism pierre >> video

journalist michelle fields -- background in journalism. >> video journalist michelle field on sunday night on c-span 's "q&a." >> a recent discussion on the economic challenges facing young adults. the white house liaison to young americans and u.s. officials talk about economic trends among young adults and how the prospects for upper mobility compared to previous generations. >> good afternoon. welcome. thank you so much for coming to the program today. we welcome you and are happy to have you. i am the director. we are very excited to have this event today. i will be quick because i know you're looking forward to the

conversation. i will introduce our wonderful speakers. i will try to be brief. we have jamelle bouie. next, eduardo garcia. he is a graduate of the california state university fullerton. as a student, he was focused on local economic development issues and their impact on immigrant and working families. in allocating and organizing for affordable housing and minimum wage jobs. he became interested in the role of immigrants in adjusting

public policy. cho.ve runonnie he wrote and edited contents associated with social justice. in 2009, he worked with the federal communications commission as part of a team that wrote the national plan and an assistant director at the u.s. department of homeland security. .hen we have heather mcgehee she was a debate policy director, domestic and economic policies, for the john edwards for president 2008 campaign and a program associate.

finally, with aaron smith. -- we have aaron smith. is the co-founder and executive director of young in vincible. after college, he in turn in the office of chris van hollen. he went back to yonkers in 2006 to be the campaign manager of the new york state of -- and went on to become the chief legislative aide for the city council president. please welcome the panel. [applause] >> thank you for coming out. with the great recession as a backdrop, it is easy to read a report like this and come away with the sense that things are terrible.

you can go down list of facts and report said. young americans are entering an economy with fewer opportunities than their parents had. for those fortunate to go to college, it is likely that they will leave college unable to deal with the debt they have over the next several years. for those who are in college but have not yet graduate, there is a fair chance that, for young people who simply have a high school education, the job market is terrible. likewise, there is a whole host of racial disparities among young people that have disadvantaged millions. young african-americans, latinos, especially are less likely to finish high school. they're less likely to attend college. they're less likely to graduate

college once they are in attendance. and they're more likely to earn below the median wage for people in their age group. they're less likely to have health insurance and are less likely to be employed. if you turn to young people who are undocumented immigrants, in addition to the aforementioned problems, they also have to deal with the fact that they do not have citizenship and that the political culture is becoming increasingly hostile to undocumented young people. it is just a mess. it is easy to read this. it is easy to come away thinking, wow, its is terrible. what can we do? these are solvable problems. these are things that we can approach as a country, as a community, to fix. i think the right way to look at this report is not so much as

look at all of these problems or doom and gloom, but diagnosing a patient, the patient being america. it is sick, but it is still up for the challenges. with that in mind, i want to start the discussion with aaron. there is a survey attached to the report. aaron, if you could detail some of the information from that survey and give us a sense of how it people are thinking and how they deal with their future. >> first, let me say thank you to the center for murder in progress for having us here. it is a tremendous opportunity. just quickly about young and vegetables, we are a national advocacy program. we've partnered with on this

program because we wanted to understand the challenges that adults face, not only response to the recession, but the long- term trends. i will talk about the polls. heather will talk about the report itself. but one thing i want to highlight is, yes, there are reasons for gloom. there are significant challenges. but we also found some reasons for optimism and hope. and a real set of priorities for congress that young people have that i think came through. let me quickly say that the poll was conducted as a bipartisan poll with researchers and consulting of 872 people surveyed. i will just give some of the high level poll results in a few different categories. you will see, first of all, the tremendous challenges that young adults, my generation, face.

first of all, we know that youth unemployment is very high. many people do not understand how low-income this population is. over 50% of young adults earn less than $30,000 per year. when we pull them, even the ones who are employed, only 53% were in their chosen field. many of them struggled with their personal financial situation and it was particularly acute issue for young people of color. for example, 60 percent of young latina said that their personal financial situation was fair or poor. it was 50% for young america -- young african-americans. across the board, young people have seen their level of debt increase of the last few years. the biggest reasons are student debt, credit cards, and medical bills. that is a consistent problem. and the economic conditions are causing people not only hardship right now, but they are causing them to delay things that they

would otherwise want to do. for example, 46% have delayed purchasing a home. a quarter have delayed getting married. 30% have delayed starting a family. these are like decisions that will have tremendous impact, not only of those young people, but on our economy and our society. so just to talk about education, we found in our poll -- we have a third of younger people -- young adults who have a college or so as to degree. a lot of people do not realize that that is the norm for this population. only about a third of young people graduate and get that degree. not surprisingly, about 76% say that college has become harder to afford in the last five years. they're absolutely concerned about how they will pay for college. we found they were even more concerned about how they would send their kids to college. so they have that long-term set of concerns.

all of these economic trends are having an impact on the view of the future. so 40% of adults feel the third generation will be worse off than their -- 48% of adults feel their generation will be worse off than their parents. 39% think that come in today's america, if you're born into one economic group, you're likely to stay there, in part because the rules are set up that way. there's tremendous frustration and concern. there's also this consistent hope and optimism. for example, 69% said they still believe that the american dream was achievable for their generation. they valued getting education, hardware, and innovation as the keys to success. -- hard work, and innovation as the keys to success.

in one area in particular, in which youngic people were the largest uninsured, we have seen some progress in the affordable care act. it is an example of how congress can released a up the plate and address these big long-term -- can really stepped up to the plate and address these big long-term challenges. thank you very much. >> heather, i know you dealt with the actual data in the report. would you like to share that? >> let me just say a little bit about the organization. it works to events in more robust democracy in america and to sharing economic prosperity.

we have really focused on the issue of this generation, actually, thankfully, still my generation. it is the first in history to most likely not do better than their parents did as they enter adulthood. 18-34-year-old are sort of the bellwether for the results of a series of economic policy decisions, most of which were made around the time that most of us on this stage were born. they have really made it a lot harder for people to work or educate their way into the middle class. this story is both about young people, but also about our country and economic choices affecting everyone. but for this generation coming of age, sort of exclusively under this economic paradigm, it is really having an effect.

we went to look at it in this report, the state of young america. we wanted to tell the story of what happened during the recession and where young people are now and also tell a broader and generational contrast story. throughout the report, which looks at data in five different areas, we compare how young people are doing today in 2010 or 2011, whatever the latest data is, compared to how their parents did in the same time of their lives. that allows us to really show the generational comparison. on the first factor that we looked at, jobs and the economy, the picture was quite disturbing. around the same time that many of us on the stage were born and many of this generation was getting its start, policymakers and corporate leaders in the country really sort of decided to, through labor policy, tax policy, trade policy, transform our country's economy from one that was a goods producing

economy to one of more knowledge and service economy. in more vivid terms, we transform their repast 40 years from an economy where the largest employer was gm with unitas middle-class jobs where you -- with unionized middle class jobs where you could support a family to wal-mart with no unions and low-income. today, the typical young man makes 10 tenths less on the dollar than his father would have in 1980. young women make 17 cents more on the dollar than their mothers did, but there are two important caveat. number one, their mothers in 1980 were less likely to even be in the workforce, to have a college degree, and making

progress on their mother's standards is great progress from a gender standpoint, but not great progress from an economic standpoint. young women today, even though they have made progress of regeneration, still earn over $8,000 less in inflation- adjusted terms then young men did in 1980. so we're seeing a generational decline in terms of wages. young people are much more likely to have part-time contingent work, more likely to not have benefits, pensions, health care and. in fact, the only workers that we have had with an increase in wages were those with a college degree. that would be fine, had the trade-off from a goods economy to a knowledge and service economy come with a robust exchange in education.

if you do not have a college degree, the country you would think would of said, okay, we will make it easier for people to get a college degree. unfortunate, that is not what happened. at the same time that college education became a ticket to a middle-class life, the report shows that the country pulled back on investments in education and training on a per- capita level. the average tuition today is three times higher than it was in 1980. i think we all know that. we all experienced that. but it has tripled in the course of a generation and that is quite stark. in 1980, the maximum pell grant covered 69% of the cost of attendance. today, it covers only 34%. as a result, we have to out of three students graduating with student loan debt on the average of $40,000. last year, the total loan debt and credit card debt in one

generation was over $1 trillion. because of the credible joblessness among the young, even college graduates, we're seeing default rates on loans that are not this chargeable on bankruptcy. there have gone up 30% in the past two years. we also think of young people as just students. but young people, 18 to 34, there also parents. they're people who are likely to start a family. they are likely to buy a house, all of that. we tried to look at the cost of living, the cost of raising a family, and found some startling statistics there as well. just in the interest of time, i will say that over 40% of young households spend more than a third of their income on rent. and the cost of child care, which is a young adult issue, paid family leave, all of that is an issue for young adults because people average 25 or 26

years old when they have their first child. the cost of child care exceeds the cost of rent in most metropolitan areas and it exceeds the cost of public education in many, many states. >> i know the white house has taken recent steps to help students alleviate their debt. what else is the white house pursuant along these lines? to what extent is the administration working to help young americans find work, develop their skills? pay for college education? >> so, the situation we find ourselves in at the white house, and the president is acutely aware of but that think when you go back to the career of the president from his actions as a community organizer to his role as president, he has been an

advocate on behalf of young people and had shared a special relationship with young folks. the things that we are trying to get past as of late with initiatives and executive orders that have been put out going back to raising the pell grant benefits to high numbers, but obviously as you have mentioned is not enough to cover most of the cost of higher education. we are doing what we can to help mitigate that. we are trying to cut out the middleman with lenders and borrowers to create some savings. also with in come-based payment reforms, allowing folks to have an ability to pay off their debt in a way that is responsible for their own situations. if you are now working, you should not have to pay $500 to

hundred dollars a month until you are employed. we are trying to make these small steps toward creating more fairness in light of the economic situation. it goes to health care. a million additional young people are now in shared because of the lobbying affordable care. those are folks that need health care and should have health care bill would not have ordinarily have access to that if it were not for that law. we are going out this from a multi faceted way of doing what we can through executive orders and is a part of the president's broader agenda of strengthening this country going forward. >> i wanted to ask along those

lines to you, ronnie. you know, the election is coming up, and young people are very energized but it seems to be quiet discontent among young people with the administration. why don't you think the things outlined -- it does reached their consciousness of sorts. why do you think that is? >> i think it is a question that a lot of folks reso with. the folks in this room talk about the accomplishments of this administration. i think that is probably something we can probably do a better job of. that is responsibility for the federal government to make sure that folks eligible for these

programs are aware of them. to talk about our strategy is to do an end-around the media who may not be getting our message across. primarily a political office where vips, business leaders, elected officials had a chance to interact with the white house and the administration. when president obama was elected to create the same opportunities that others had enjoyed to the general public. so we convened a series of events and meetings here at the white house to bring opinion leaders, community leaders from virtually every industry and issue to the white house not only to be informed of the things that this president is working on and has accomplished

but also to be informed ourselves of the issues of most importance and to create a direct dialogue between the american people and this administration and the spirit of what the president believes in as an acceptable and responsible government. is in the spirit of that that we are doing our best to infiltrate different communities to make sure they know they have a seat at the table and if they know what the president is doing on their behalf on the issues that we care about, there is an open door for us -- for them to have that discussion. to talk about why there is this discontent around young people, the report shows young people have been pretty hard hit by the economy. i think that is something we are all very concerned about.

i've think when the cub to the policies that this president is pushing fourth, making sure folks know we are continuing to work on their behalf. but no one is satisfied with the unemployment numbers. it is unacceptably high across the board especially for young people. we are working on those things. >> one of the big questions is one of action, what can young people do to influence the political process. what recommendations have you developed? >> going off what ronnie just said, working with young people on the issues that they care about the most, i think there has to be a point made about the role that organizations play. at the national and local

levels, the role that they play in developing leaders and why that is so important for the future of young people in politics. my biggest point to that would be organizations have a responsibility to provide young people with the skills that they need to learn about politics. there is a lot of energy that young people have right now getting involved especially with all of the occupy stuff. you are seeing a lot of young faces come out and challenge the issues that they are coming up against. on our end, it is organizations like campus progress and others need to be very aware of the frustrations that young people have with regard to education, the economy, immigration. i get to work with undocumented young people all the time.

so i think a lot of it comes down to programming. organizations need to be very aware of who they are developing, who their programs are geared toward, what skills they are gaining. is it putting them in experiences where they are interning at the office of a legislator? are they getting experience doing community organizing? are they getting experience doing policy work? i think that excitement is a pipeline for leadership development that i think still needs to be further developed on top of what the administration does for young people. in a lot of ways, i think there are a lot of organizations that they're not really taking advantage of the energy that exist right now to develop the talents and skills and their leadership of young people

better being most disenfranchised and most deeply affected by the economy by the high cost of education, by the fact that congress cannot seem to get its act together. so, really being aware of who your constituents are, having programming and setting them up for future opportunities to get involved in politics. and taking a chance on young people that they're being most disenfranchised by some of the most -- by cuts to education, really taking advantage of that opportunity to develop their skills as leaders because these are going to be the people who will be leading the country. >> i think it is one of the hardest things about doing what i do.

there is not an aarp version for young people. there is a huge organization whose sole intent is to help protect the issues and programs geared toward young people. i think that creates a space for campus progress, young invincibles to really fill that space to become that advocacy group. that is challenging, of course. to get both the non-campus youth, the folks who are not in college, to have them be a part of this process and to arm them with the tools of civic engagement, that it is beyond checking of the box on election day. is about citizenship and being a part of the process. talking about how we do not

market democracy well. when the harry potter movie comes out, what day it is going to come on, how much it will cost you, and what time. but when it comes to a zoning meeting, whether or not there is a strip club that is going to open up a block from your home, where is that information? i think it is incumbent upon all of us to armed the public with the tools of how to be involved. >> particularly for young people, i know that a lot of people have been aware of it -- i think we actually go further than not marketing democracy enough and that there is a real war in this country going on in terms of people who have a vested interest in suppressing our democracy or our vote in targeted ways.

2008 was a watershed year for participation among young people of color who are going to be the rising american electorate. in 2010, there was a blitzkrieged across the state. 31 states considered -- entered some sort of legislation to restrict the road -- the voting rights of various people. the piece that was hard-hitting for young adults is the voter i.d. laws. a lot of people think it makes a ton of sense. in fact, over a third of 18-year olds in this country do not have a government-issued i.d. the numbers are similar for older citizens and low income citizens and people of color who have to deal with the bureaucracy of getting aphoto i.d. it creates cost and

inconvenience. >> as the economic situation for many americans has become more precarious, there seems to have been this backlash against programs to expand opportunities for younger people which seems to coincide with the fact that young americans are overwhelmingly -- it is minority demographic and not very divers. to what extent can progressives use the tools of civic engagement or the political process to beat back this zero sum view of the world? we can see very much and boat. you just have to watch the gop political debates to get the sense these are people fighting against the changing tides. >> i think young adults and progressives have tremendous amounts of opportunity to

capitalize on some of the debates that are happening and the upcoming election to really push the kind of change that can change the country. i think we see that already with the occupy wall street movement where it is actually shifting the debate to focus on issues like jobs and the student debt crisis. so, absolutely there is going to be this opportunity. young people need to be engaged. a responsibility is to put forth a specific solution -- how are we going to create more jobs for young people? how are we going to make college more affordable? i think young people in need to be a part of that conversation. we saw in the poll overwhelming support across party lines

regardless of your affiliation as a young person for creating jobs as the number one priority for adults and making college affordable was number two. protecting health care services for low income people was a priority. protecting social security was a top priority for young adults. this was all across party lines. i think there is some broadly held the use among young adults and shared set of principles. is now incumbent upon us to find some of the specific solutions. for example, we know that young people want to start businesses. can you create a student loan relief program? that is something we have been talking about with members of congress. can you do a better job in making sure that when a young person applies for a loan, they

are able to -- they take into account other factors than just their credit history? if you just graduated or if you are 19 years old, you do not have a long credit history but that does not mean you do not have the potential to start a viable business. areas of higher education, pell grants are once again on the chopping block. that would be an absolute embarrassment if we cut grants at a time when we know we desperately need to educate more young adults. we need that bigger, comprehensive solution for addressing the cost of higher education. there are ideas floating out there, and it is time for young people to push them whether it is access to better information of what you actually get out from going to college or whether

it is a race to a top-type model for higher education that promotes colleges for using innovative techniques to keep costs down. i think there are ideas out there. 2012 gives us an opportunity to close that gap between the frustration, energy, and policy makers in d.c. who do not have any idea what young people are thinking or doing. >> the role that organizations play in developing young people and making sure they -- they are a part of the conversation. i think that is why we do not see young people coming out for other moments. i think we have to be more

cognizant about who we are developing if we know that young people of color are being the most disenfranchised from the political process or are being most affected by cuts to higher education or a lack of opportunity for jobs. these are the people that we need to be doing the most out reached for and providing them skills to be better organizers, to have a better understanding of the local political system, things like that. >> just to add something on your question. i think we have been seeing a major question of political philosophy being debated in this country. it is a question of do i care the most about individual freedoms, freedom as defined as freedom from intrusions and governance particularly by the

government? or is my animating principle for public life a view that we all do better when we all do better, and if we have the means to create better outcomes for people, we should all support them and sacrifice a little for a better outcome for the public. i think the idea of the public has been fraught. it gets more fraught when the community being represented becomes more diverse. we are at an amazingly huge country geographically with over 300 million people. we are the most diverse nation of our size on earth. we are really a beautiful multi-culturalment in a society.

i think it to look at the expansion of homeowner should that happened in the 1950's jabalpur to create the first met aol in the plan, there were racial aspects deck at certain people out of that contract and. pe-- that that does not stop the desire to make the sacrifices about five years ago. it looked at existing data.

existing polling data about their public attitude. young people are actually more oriented towards public solutions, more willing to pay higher taxes for hire services, a higher degree of service from the government ban and the generation since the depression generation. we have really gotten the message from certain sectors of our political sphere that you are on your own for credit card. there is not going to be any regulation for that. you are on your own for all these things. there is a backlash from young people who would like to have a society where people took care of each other and a more and level the playing field. >> why hasn't that manifested in our policies? in the last two years, there has been a relentless push against an idea of a collective public.

is it a question of organization? i feel like it is very easy for someone to simply dismiss college students. if they work late 20-somethings organizing, there would be a different. >> i think one of the challenges is the short term vs. long-term problem. this is one of the most diverse generations in our history, one of the most tech-savvy, best educated, most tolerant, most civic-minded generation with a tremendous opportunity. i think sometimes when our policy makers look at the range of problems, they are thinking we need to solve the problem that is affecting us right now. this is the debate that is happening in congress right now.

if we want to move the country ahead, we need to be thinking about this generation and how to make it possible for them to succeed. i think that longer-term debate gets lost in the shuffle that we have this very short-term focus. again, it is at young adults responsibility to bring that longer-term perspective. we all know that we need to improve the economy and make the country more competitive. what better way than investing in young people? that argument does not get made enough i think. >> it is an interesting moment for our generation. the challenges are very steep. it is an amazing opportunity for us. i think this is a generation

that needs to assert ourselves on the political process. this is still a country that believes in access to quality education, a country that believes health care is something folks should have an opportunity to have come a clean air and clean water. there should be a job for everyone who wants one. are we a country that believes in those things? this is a generation that believed in those things. my feeling is, yes, this nation has those values in a way that previous generations have not had in numbers. i think it is incumbent upon ourselves to not ask for an invitation to be a part of the discussion. that is not going to happen.

i think it is our time to emerge as a force to be reckoned with. when you look at the folks who are doing something in their communities, maybe they are not participating politically but that does not mean they are not making a difference in some way whether they are starting a non- profit or starting their own companies. any way they are improving their city or country, those things are happening. i think it is important to inform our generation that is what change looks like but there is also a civic engagement part of it that we should also leverage. >> heather, you mentioned earlier that the attempt to keep young americans or the agenda

involves restriction of their voting rights. the extent to which in addition there are laws but a large population of the americans who are ex-convicts and once they are out of prison, their opportunities are nilch. there is very little out there for them. to what degree as a generation or a country fix this problem? if left unattended, it can really be a huge setback for our economic and political process. >> i think it is important to look at the policy levers that created them at various points in our history. around the same time when this generation was being born, our sentencing and drug policies changed dramatically in this country. there were changes to our laws that created much more

mandatory minimum sentencing and really having the effect of increasing by almost double the average prison term for non- violent drug offenders to where non-violent offenders are the majority of people in federal prison now which is an unthinkable thing 30 years ago. said that this generation, a generation -- so that this generation, a subset of the population that came of age in inner cities that had been experiencing the industrialization because of the trends we talked about with good manufacturing jobs in central cities going overseas and the economic collapse that happened in so many inner-city is where the drug economy took its place, we are seeing an incredible explosion in young men of color and also young women, young white women being caught up in

the drug trade and having an incredible -- even if it is an eight-month sentence, the sentence last for the rest of their lives in terms of discrimination against people with criminal records with employment, the lack of support for reentry coming home which i know the white house has an initiative on, but also i think if we are looking at the reforms that we need to do, there was a move to decrease the crack powder cocaine disparity which was a discriminatory law that was changed recently under president obama and some sentencing reforms from the courts, but we can also do things to make sure people who come out of prison have the right to vote and change the law as around eligibility for federal student loans and student aid because in fact if

you have a criminal sentence, a drug offense or a federal offense, you are not eligible for federal student loans and programs, and that is something that is counter to the idea of giving a second chance and having young people being contributing members to society. one last form that we could do which would affect the entire generation -- we need a large- scale public jobs program that is temporary, that directly put people to work. i think of the example of young people building the appalachian trail during the great depression. it has fallen into disrepair. it would be a generational the transformative experience to have people working on public service jobs in their community. not just the appalachian trail. rebuilding parts, installing

solar panels on ruth's. -- on roofs. >> the poll supports what has they're just said, the support for broad jobs programs that can put young people to work. i also think there are policy areas, low hanging fruit, that that thing people have neglected when it comes to young people and jobs. the earned income tax credit is not available to young people under 25. why that is, there is really no good explanation. it is a program designed to help low income working people but it is not provided to young adults. many young people because of the types of jobs they have do not qualify for unemployment

insurance. these are reforms that i think folks do not pay a lot of attention to but they are out there and we could make these fixes. these are reasonable and relative fixes that could have a huge impact on young adults and low income young adults. the one other thing i wanted to add is a population we have not talked about is young veterans. young veterans have tremendously high unemployment rates, young people who are serving the country who are often leaders in their own right and then come back and struggle to find jobs. one very positive thing that we have done is the new g.i. bill which helps young americans get a better education and afford a. i personally know young veterans who are taking advantage of it.

we have identified a problem and found solutions that could fix. >> this stems from what had there was saying. amount undocumented immigrants, very few immigrants have college degrees. it is something like 76,000, a very tiny number. what can we do to expand access of higher education to undocumented communities and help these people afford education? a lot of states charged them a lot more money for an education because they cannot prove their citizenship. >> a policy issue that campus progress works on is passing the federal dream. the dream act is a piece of legislation that was for a long time supported by both parties.

it would create a pathway for citizenship to undocumented adults living in the u.s. it is a bill that would address the fact that 55 stout -- 55,000 students every year are graduating from high school. unfortunately, they do not get to go to college and apply for grants that students with social security numbers would have. they have a series of challenges that they face when they are applying for school. some states offer in-state tuition which means they get to pay the same rate that other students pay. in general, that is something that state could do. there are a lot of students right now that are working in states to make sure students are paying the same rate as their

fellow u.s. citizens. but that think in general there are a lot of things the administration can do to protect students who are right now currently in deportation proceedings. there are state passing anti- immigration legislation that is targeting communities of color at large. those are a few things i think we could do to address the plight of undocumented youth in college. >> is the administration -- >> i will say that under -- president obama said the dream act was something that did not get as far as he would like. it is something that both parties supported for a long time. i just think that it is something that everyone still

believes deeply in and something we are working our hardest to bring back. being in government now is interesting to me because there is in order to all of this stuff. i think there are meaningful reforms that ought to be implemented. we are working our best to make sure we can implement the ones that we can. >> one of the things briefly mentioned that i would like to go into more detail about is families. young people, for obvious reasons, are usually the ones starting families and there does not seem to be much support for that. i am sure there are deductions and the tax code for having children, but the cost of child care is very high.

what kind of recommendations are there in -- as far as improving the situation for young families and people who want to start families? >> i believe the lack of a coordinated focus on supporting families and what it is supposed to be a country with strong family values is one of the great under-mobilized issues in this country given how many people it affects which is essentially everyone whether you are a parent or a chat or someone in a community with many children who are being under- invested in. we are the only industrialized nation without some form of guaranteed paid leave for an event that happens to everyone. you get very sick or you have a family. you adopt or have a child.

given the incredible amount of financial resources, that is a crying shame. we can create a form of universal paid maternity/paternity leave in this country. right now, we have an act that leaves half of the people on covered because of the size of the employer that it work for, part-time, or they cannot access it because it is unpaid. if you do not have a way to make ends meet during that time, you are out of luck. so, we can create -- and american family trust has been proposed that would be paid for by premiums to guarantee paid leave for all workers. we also need to have a nearly universal system of early childhood education and care.

we are deeply under-invested in this area of. there is a tax credit for early child care but it is totally insufficient to the cost. there are waitlists even for the families that are eligible for them. nearly a universal system of improving child care for most americans would be about $88 billion a year which is not small but is also not huge. we know the economic benefit is about $17 for every dollar invested. this is the kind of public response to a near universal problem of what to do because most families have two working

parents they are lucky. that has been off the table because of an ideological conversation about regulations on business. for our generation which is the first to come in as a household as the paradigm, we are going to have to struggle with and demand a solution for this >> back in 2008, both barack obama and hillary clinton as a part of their campaign platforms. what happened? it seems to have dropped off the radar of our political conversation. at least that is something. >> i guess you are asking me that question. i would say the priority has

been the economy as we stand right now. at the end of the year, you will have troops from iraq all coming home. think about the political discussion we were having in 2006, 2007, 2008. this was the issue. now, it does not resonate as much as you think it would if you asked someone in 2007 how significant with the end of the iraq war be. that is the time that we find ourselves and. it is very difficult circumstances when folks are struggling to find jobs and extending benefits. there are things that need to protect that are long-term investments in this country. i would not say it has dropped off the table or something that

no one thinks about. that is why the president has been so f irm in protecting medicaid and medicare and other programs that are investments in the american people then bang they may not manifest themselves in a national dialogue. >> i think one thing to add that we have not talked about is what the conversation has been about since 2010 which is the deficit and an idea of medicaid and medicare and pell grants that are basically the fight is to maintain the status quo of them and not cut them. it all basically requires an expansion of our federal investments in the american

people and the country and our future. that is overlaying the conversation that we have to have 2010 be the high water mark for federal investment in our country. it is a dampener on all of these conversations. until we can get out of that frame, i think occupy wall street has helped to shift the conversation in the media and the temperature in washington, but until we can have a lot more support -- higher taxes, higher investment, higher government spending -- we will not be able to have the kind of country that we all take for granted. >> a lot of these conversations take place on the federal level. i do not think there is enough attention paid. state governments have an enormous impact of what goes on

in daily lives. this is for you, eddie. what kind of activism might be effective on the state level for these policies? there is a lot of that lawmakers can do to improve the situation. >> definitely depends on the policy. . i get to work with young people on immigration policy issues at the local level. universities, looking to have policies to elevate the process for young people to apply for grants that the university offers, or they are working on policies to improve access at the state level so they are able to apply for financial aid. the california dream act was one of those legislations that open up access to higher education by opening state-based aid to undocumented use and that took a

long time. young people were organizing and recognizing at the federal level there was very little action taken place at the federal level. i think it is a great example of folks that recognize that. at the national level, sometimes the political climate is not there to advance meaningful policy. they are now going to the state level, the local level, to passop skills anto meaningful legislation to build local power around these issues which a lot of times comes down to education or building allies with folks who have access to different resources that can further in their campaign to really identify solutions better coming from the young folks that are the most disenfranchised from the policies. this is a great study of one of those instances where i said before folks recognize that at

the federal level of on specific issues we are not seeing a lot of meaningful action so california for example was one of those states that after we saw what happened in 2010, we were able to take that energy and turn it into local and state power. maryland did the same thing. a number of other states are looking to improve access to higher education for undocumented youth. >> i think one clear example where young people have a tremendous opportunity over investment and public universities, colleges. if you look at what the main drivers of the increase costs to higher education, it is the dramatic cuts and lack of investment in higher education. the cost of higher education for a public university has tripled

since 1980. at this point, it is going up significantly faster than inflation. it is going up faster than health care costs. in health care, we were talking about 8. we need to reduce the growth. you are talking about states cutting their support for colleges and universities by 8% or 9%. it should not surprise anyone that tuition is increasing substantially. young people absolutely have a role to play at the state level when it comes to pushing back against those cuts and insuring their state universities many of which are extremely popular have the support it needs and it is providing access to the widest group of young adults in that state. >> i think at this point we want to open up the panel to

questions from the audience. someone will be around with a microphone. you in the red. >> first of all, i want to say thank you very much for this panel. i can really depressed, and you have given me a great deal of hope. i am with the gray panthers. i want you to know that there are older people who really, really support what you are doing, what we are all doing, because these are issues that affect all of us. my question would be to every one of you. how can we work together? is really important. you talked about fairness. we want it to be fair.

>> i can give one quick example where i have seen it successfully work on health care. the provision that lets you stay on our parents planned until you a 26. when we were doing education work on around it, it was just as popular among seniors and parents because of the impact they could have on their children and grandchildren. we did a town hall meeting with aarp where they call their members in california, and we had about 10,000 people on the call having a conversation about the rules are around this new provision and how it could impact our family. and the opportunity we confined to have these joint education opportunities. so many times it is about educating what our policy ideas that we are throwing out there.

i think that is an opportunity we should take. to the extent that groups can work together, i think that is amazing. >> i think what is important to us and something that we work hard at, instead of specifying these issues as a priority for young americans, create national priorities, things that all of us care about. when you talk to folks in your community, and they are asking what you care about, i care about the things affecting my community. not "i just want to make sure i have a job." "i want jobs to be available for everyone in my community." it is about my little sister and my little brother getting a chance to go to school. clean air and clean water, not

just for my neighborhood, but i wanted for every 1. i want my grandparent to have access to health care and affordable prescription drugs. i think this is the kind of alliance that has not existed traditionally. a lot of these issues have been silent. there needs to be some synergy in order to leverage all of our collective voices and power to get there. >> my name is adrianna. i had a couple questions. you were talking about the health care bill and how it affects youth. in the political debate and the

presidential debate for 2012, that is one of the big things. what is that going to mean for you and what is your organization's billing to inspire youth to fight against that? what role is that going to have -- rick perry supported the taxes dream. how do you see that? >> so, repealing the health care law would have a tremendous negative impact on young adults. we have heard about the 1 million young adults who have gained health insurance under the new law. many people do not realize many of the gains that are just down the road. 20 million uninsured adults, and over 8 million would be covered under the medicaid expansion under the health care law. in most states, you can now

qualify for medicaid even if you are under the poverty line. by 2014, that is going to be expanded. then you have another 10 million that could qualify for subsidies. you are talking about over 50 million young adults who would potentially game health insurance in 2014 if the health care law is allowed to continue and be fully implemented. going backwards is exactly the wrong move. but it is an education challenge. we are going to be doing some work this spring before graduation time and more work in the fall to educate young people about what the health care law actually means for them because i think a lot of people do not quite understand it. i think then you are prepared to then become an advocate to

explain i am a young person but health care matters to my life. we have found that when those stories are told, it can be quite powerful and change the political debate. >> as far as immigration and the role that it is going to play in 2012, it is going to be dependent on how the administration continues to deal with the undocumented population in the u.s. currently. there are 11 million undocumented people living in the united states. in august, the administration announced the creation of a joint committee between the department of justice and homeland security that is currently severely backlogged that involves folks who are in the process of being deported or removed from the country. many of those folks are young people that would qualify for

the dream act that would have benefits had it passed in the last congress. to add to your point, i think young people are very much feeling the impact of the harmful deportation policies that have been adopted. i think it is especially hurtful because any of those folks who turned out in 2008 to get this president elected. i think a lot of it is going to come from how this policy is going to be implemented over the next few months to make sure folks that are not high priority removal from the united states -- if their cases to end up getting dropped. i think that is where it is going to be at, with the energy is going to come from. >> anyone else? the middle, yeah.

>> it is been a common point of this panel that issues affecting young americans are put on the back burner politically. what is the biggest obstacle to making those issues in national priority? how should we overcome them? >> i do not know if this is the biggest but this is certainly a large one. in general, the kitchen table issues that are affecting most americans are not on the front burner for congress. you are looking at one -- what is on the legislative calendar this week, a bill that would

make every regulation that is implementing a law passed by congress whether it is dodd- frank, the health care law, the clean air act, every regulation passed by congress would have to go back to congress to be passed by two houses and the president. it does not make any sense from a good government, efficiency standpoint. the only reason to do it is to make sure that some regulated industry that has a really good relationship -- one single senator can filibuster that rule and we would never see it come to the light of day. in terms of what is on the agenda in washington, it is very far from the issues that we are talking about. i think a lot of that has to do with the corrosive effect of money and organize business power in washington.

that is something that we did not ask exactly the question but that young americans are particularly outraged by, this new, big money ssystem iwhich is a gentle form of legalized bribery. it is a new thing over the past 30 years and has gotten much, much worse over the past few decades. for the generation that is come up only in that paradigm, it is very clear that the very wealthiest are calling the shots in washington. there is a lot of outrage about that. i think that was behind a lot of the spirit to change washington that had young people coming out in record numbers. >> i would echo that. what is being discussed in washington is not part of what is being discussed across

kitchen tables across the country. the president put out a proposal to cut taxes for middle-class workers and it did not get through. if it does not make any sense why these elements that we are trying to get through to help ordinary americans every single day -- there are long-term investments but there are things that we can do right now to put a few hundred extra dollars in the pockets of the american people and yet we are still not able to get that done. it is frustrating. it is disappointing that there is a process that exists where people cannot agree on the things that would help most of us. so many of us at a time when there is an urgent need for this kind of action. it is very challenging and it is very stressful. i think it is important to note

that the president and this white house continues to build steam and gather support around the country to really inform people on what the issues are, the things that the president is fighting for in putting forth and the ways that they contend that intermission back home and let folks know there are opportunities and there are folks here in d.c. that are trying to fight for them and arm them with the information to help them organize and be engaged. >> you mentioned -- you talked a lot about college students but most people are not college students. what is your connection -- anybody can answer this -- with

the unions? you would think that for their future survival, they would be wanting to get in turns and various technical trades and so forth and that they should have rigid they used some of their capital for internships for a lot of the youth. >> we did ask about unionization in the pool --poll. i would encourage you to to check out the results. unions have a tremendous opportunity to connect with him adults. young adults in a way they have not done as well in the past few years. occupy wall street is a perfect example trade unions lent

support to a movement that was driven by an people. we have seen union for its support the -- union support for other issues. there needs to be a realization that union members of tomorrow are this generation. i am not talking about currently unionized young workers. i am talking but students, recent high-school graduates, talking to them about what it means to be in the union and the value of that, you lose that opportunity. overall, the idea of taking care of and some of those values are persuasive and powerful to young people. they could be used very successfully. a little bit of context on the union question. we did look at unionization

among young workers. it has dropped in half since 1980. it is not an accident. a major trend has been conservative economic policies. 1980 was the year that ronald reagan fired 11,000 striking air traffic control workers. the attack in the organized business response to union drives and organizing the attacks on the right to organize and us have an effect of the time we're looking at. young workers are less likely to be in the union than they were before by half. then there are the other workers as well. if you look at a job that is unionized versus one that is not united -- unionized with the

same characteristics, union workers have a 17% higher wage. the differential is even higher for workers of color. has a better shot of having a middle-class job. there are policy responses. we could pass the free choice act to make it easier for people to join a union. we have labor laws that could be strengthened, but it is all about policy choices. i am glad you concentrated on that in the report to look at the quality of jobs for workers who do not have a college degree. it should not be a given that if you do not have a college degree that your job is a permanently low-and job with no opportunity.

since then. -- with no opportunity for advancement. >> we need to reset and the time of thinking about our priorities as a country and what we need to move forward to grow the economy and be successful. that is what 2012 will be about, this opportunity for people to have that conversation. i think this could be the young americans election. young people really could be at the center of the debate. the future of our country could be at the center of the debate in a different way than it was in 2008. i see a tremendous opportunity for young people to push the conversation. we have to seize the moment.

if we do not get out there and identify real solutions, we could be left on the sidelines again. that would be a tremendous waste and lost opportunity. >> i have four members of your generation in my household. you mentioned the voter suppression activities. i think you said 1/3 of 18-year- i.d.'s. not have photo i find that mindboggling. the government is charged with issuing those. how is that not an illegal toltecs?

>> in states where voter ids have passed, they introduced some sort of disenfranchised -- whether it is a better idea or shortening the amount of time for early voters. maine ended their successful same-day registration. only six or seven states actually passed a voter i.d. bill. in those states they have a provision for a free driver's license. in wisconsin, that was one of the first things that gov. walker did, he rushed through the voter i.d. bill. it is about $40 to get a driver's license or state-issued i.d. there were vouchers to prove you

were a low income. one of the latest things done by the same administration was too close the number of dmv's because of budget constraints. there has been a lot of attracting people trying to get a free i.d. retracting -- tracking people trying to get a free i.d. and showing how difficult it is to do. you could do a lot with the administrative hurdles to suppress the vote. the question about one of bills were introduced is whether they fell into a larger conversation where everyone thought it was an attack on voting rights of large numbers of people in the state. does it in that being a conversation about voter i.d. and administration? we need to have a broader conversation about what kind of democracy we have where we're

saying we want big money out and people in. that includes public financing of elections and overturning citizens united. it is also about lowering the barriers. we celebrated the 1 million voter register after we have gone into a state with litigation or negotiation. it helps states to implement the public part of the voter registration bill. when you come in, you are to have a voter registration card. when you go into welfare office or to get food stamps or disability, you should be encouraged to register to vote. those things are about lessening political inequality. there are ways we can advance

that cars because -- there are ways we can advance of that clause as well. >> thank you for hosting us and thank you to the panelists for coming out. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> "washington journal" recently looked at the impact of religion on the political campaign. this discussion is about one hour. host: we want to welcome richard land with the southern baptist convention and the president of the ethics and religious liberty commission, and jim wallis, the president of sojourners. i want to put on the table today's "washington times." richard land, in the iowa

caucus the evangelical vote is a significant part of the republican electorate. >> about 60% they say of the voters are evangelicals, and as last time, they seem to be somewhat divided. in 2008 they split their vote among four or five candidates, and this time it looks like some will vote for gingrich, some will vote for michele bachmann, some will go for rick perry, some will vote for rick santorum. host: will this make a difference? guest: i am try to understand how family values for evangelicals in iowa, who care about role models, how they're

being attracted to newt gingrich. i am wrestling with that. host: how would you answer that? guest: i am evangelical, and it is not just third marriage. it is behavior. when you are having an affair, it means you are lying to the most important people around you, and i think that is a problem. for john edwards, or four newt gingrich. evangelicals christians drawn to newt gingrich troubles me to be honest. guest: they have the same problems that evangelicals who supported bill clinton had. all i can say is i have talked to a lot of evangelicals, and a lot of them do have problems, but you have to understand that forgiveness, redemption, second and third chances are part of the theological dna of evangelicals. when he says i am sorry, i have learned lessons from my past,

and i am now committed to my wife, my church, my children and my grandchildren, they give him a break. i will tell you this. there is a gender gap. i've done a couple of hundred focus groups with the southern baptist because they ask me everywhere i go about newt gingrich, and i find that evangelical men tend to be more forgiving than evangelical women. i think evangelical women want to hear more of what john mccain said. john mccain cemented his support among evangelicals when he said the failure of my first marriage was the biggest regret of my life, and it was my fault host: this is from "the family leader." it is the marriage vow. it reads among other items, pledging fidelity to my spells, respect to the marital vows of

others, and fidelity to the united states constitution. what role does this type of pledge have in american politics? guest: it seems to go all over the place from judicial philosophy, to economic philosophy. citing pledges probably is not something that makes a lot of sense to me. there is not a separation between the personal and the public, like many people want to do. someone's personal life and choices does say a lot about their public leadership. so, i think integrity and one's personal life and relationships connected. guest: harry truman cut to the bottom line. he said in the 1930's "i would never knowingly hire someone to work for me that cheated on his wife."

when he was asked why, he said if he would lie to his wife, he would lie to me. you cannot separate public morality and private morality. a lot of people try. a lot of people tried to do it when bill clinton was the object, and some have tried now with newt gingrich. a lot of americans say this is not right. the way a person de -- de haze in private tells a lot about how they will behave in public. guest: i am concerned that people that were unforgiving of bill clinton, and then just give newt gingrich a test. i do not hear the kind of deep lament and repentance in some of the apologists, "well, i was so patriotic, working all the time, and that caused me to fail." host: let me point of that it was speaker gingrich's house

that called for the impeachment. is there hypocrisy? guest: hypocrisy on steroids. a great deal of hypocrisy. i think people have to struggle with this. ford newt gingrich comac if he asks us to forgive him is a no--- -- for giving newt gingrich, if he asks us to forgive him, is a no-bring your parents the issue is -- is a no-brainer. the issue is do you want to trust someone who has that test with the presidency? and a neutral observer would say that one reason newt gingrich has not done better than he has done in the polls is because of the train of moral

baggage he carries behind him. it's so let's look at american politics and put it in context of the chamber. the king at the breakdown of house and senate members, in the u.s. how -- house of representatives, there are 10 members of the mormon faith, one of the 32 members that are catholic, three buddhist, and 27 members of the jewish faith, and 13 describe themselves as others. in the senator, there are five members of the mormon faith, 56 members are protestant, 26 members are catholic, 12 are jewish, 3 listed as other. your general thoughts? guest: it sounds a lot like the democratic description of the united states, which it should

give the democratic -- the demographic description of the united states, which it should. it sounds like the demographics of the country. we are a country that is majority protestant, but have a significant catholic minority, and significant numbers of jews and mormons, and muslims, and people that are not anything. that sounds like a representative house of representatives. guest: i think we would agree that religion does not matter in the sense there is no religious test for office, but character does. we are talking about what is the character of those running for office. there ought not to be a religious litmus test, but character matters. guest: martin luther said "i would rather be governed by a competent turk, which was a

moslem, than an incompetent christian." guest: i would like to hear comments on that from all candidates. he said competence -- he did not say i want to be led by someone of my faith if they are not any good at it. host: what is your message in your book? guest: to conservatives, i say that their mistake is they assume god is on their side, and you cannot do that. he left to do your best to be on got's side the liberals assumed that god does not have a side. i might be willing to with knowledge that god does not have this side when it comes to

payments or trade policy, but when it comes to life and marriage issues got is pro-life, and pro-marriage. guest: my book makes a simpler point. i think both sides get it wrong when it comes to religious and politics. host: is the president a strong religious person? guest: i have an advantage of knowing him before he was there. he had an adult conversion. he became a christian in his adult life, and we used to talk about faith a lot. i know he is a committed christian with a personal faith that we used to talk about all the time back when he was not thinking about being president. at least he was not running.

host: yet these are official figures that since he has been in the white house, he has attended only nine official church services on sunday. does that matter? guest: my view is that it is better if they go to church and have a church family. i've said to the president and the white house and would be better if he went to church on sunday. he does some time, but ronald reagan did not go either, and evangelicals liked him. they say that it is very disruptive to a church, clearly, for a president to go to a church. they say it is destructive for the president to go to church. it is disruptive for the president to go to church. it costs $100,000 in security. per sunday. that is what i am told. i do not know the facts, but that is what they say. they also say that when he goes

to church people are in line around the corner, and the pastor does not feel like it is a private affair. there are logistical issues, disruptive issues, security issues. all of that is true. at the end of the day, i would like to see him have a home base, home church. he went last sunday, or the sunday before. he is been to some of the churches around town. i have passed their friends that had some -- pastor friends that new he was coming and have some pressure. host: we appreciate your participation. you can send us an e-mail, we join us on line on our facebook page, our twitter page, or give us a phone call. host: richard land, did you want to follow up?

guest: if a person is a professing christian, they ought to practice their faith. i think there are ways around the logistics' issue, and lincoln used to go, and sit in the study, and he could hear the sermon, but no one could see him. i understand the president does have worship services at camp david. i would prefer to see the president going to church, but i do not think it should be a test for office. the constitution says it should not be a test and i agree. if the person is a professing christian and is the president, they ought to be going to church. guest: the president gets morning and daily reflections from one of the best pastors in

the country. so, every day, there are serious morning reflections and prayer offered. so, the president does practices faith in a number of ways in a personal way, but a regular church home has not been his practice so far, and a lot of people would like to see that, but do believe nonetheless this personal faith is very real. host: one of the foundations of the constitution, separation of church and state, yet every winter and spring the national prayer breakfast takes place. is that appropriate? guest: i have often gone. i do not see a problem with them. i think the president would be invited no matter what his fate was, and if we had a present that was not a believer, i

think he would be invited still. this is a national event, and it could be taken in a broader context. there is a civil religion, and that as bad and good to it. there should be no religious test. people of different faiths have been president. i think richard android both believe that a nonbeliever ought to be present, but we doubt one would be collected. -- elected. guest: this is a voluntary prayer breakfast. it would be inappropriate if it was sponsored or required by the government. there is no violation of separation of church and state terror -- state. he chooses to go. host: savannah, georgia, republican line with richard land and jim wallis. welcome to the program.

caller: thank you and good morning, and thank you for having victor cha on. i would like to frame my comments and questions with a quote about gondi. he says "your christ i like, you're christians i do not like." i use that as a reminder to consciously live what i believe. when we talk about the role of religion in politics, maybe we can extend the discussion to race relations. a couple of weeks ago, there was a call from a 91-year-old woman who was a christian and talk about her support for newt gingrich, and that the end of her comment she said a shockingly racist statement. why do christians seem to have a lack of consciousness about being bigoted? what could pastors or people to

to have a greater conflation of our christian beliefs with our day-to-day attitudes and behaviors? guest: one of the things people always say is the reason the apostle paul and peter had success is there were not a bunch of christians around to when the message before they got -- ruin the message before they got to preach it. no christian is perfect. we do not ask you to worship us. jesus is perfect. we are imperfect. you will find fault with us. racism is evidently part of the folly of human beings. we of had to fight it since the beginning of time. in the new testament the jews did not want to except a gentile christians.

we have had it ever since. we have made remarkable progress in this country up to and including the election of an african-american president, something all americans should be proud of. racism is alive and well in our country, and we need to make it very clear that it is totally and utterly inconsistent with the christian faith. if you are going to be a christian, god is no respecter of persons. black, white, yellow, brown, you are all equal. we should treat everyone equally, but we have to consistently, that it because it is evidently an inherent part of the fallen nature of human beings that they think better of themselves and they ought to think, and less of others and they should. host: how would you define the

term secular? guest: let me respond to that. your comments about people liking the christ, but not the christians, an awful lot of young people feel that way. they're looking for people to do what they say. on racism, the church i was raised in, the church richard was raised in, missed the moral challenge of our time. they missed the civil rights movement. racism is a sin against god. in the early church it was a fundamental question. it is still with us. it is alive and well. this is one of those on the list of what god takes sides on. that is part of the reason we are not credible. young people see us as being hypocrites when it comes to major issues like race. second, i think we are a

pluralistic society. that means religious liberty is important, for our faith traditions, and for those that have no faith at all. his secular means an ideology against religion, that is another point of view, but if we are a pluralistic nation, billy's and nonbelievers should be protected equally -- beliefs and non-belief should be protected equally. guest: 85% of americans claim some sort of face with the christian faith. the government should not take sides. the government should not be coaching religion, censoring religion, sponsoring, or attempting to suppress religion. it should be an umpire, making sure everyone plays fair. everyone should have the opportunity to practice faith without interference. host: on the issue of the president going to church, this

from twitter guest: a lot of young people are not going to church either, even though they are christians, they do not like what they see, or church does not demonstrate what it means to follow christ. the separation of church and state, which we would both strongly affirm, does not mean the separation of public life and moral values. if there is a real difference there. so, it is appropriate to invoke moral values based on when's tradition. dr. king with the up jeremiah, isaiah, jesus, but had a bible in one hand and the constitution in another. guest: he challenged americans to live up to the ideals of our founding documents, shaming us into saying this is what your documents say. it is time to practice what you preach.

host: we will be joined tomorrow for more thoughts on this issue, with the president for americans united for separation of church and state. democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. this subject has been on my mind for quite some time. i would like the gentleman to talk back to the founding fathers. did they have face? -- faith? with a part of churches? did they attend church? i do not think they did, but i would like to hear what they have to say. guest: pluralism again is what you would have to say. there really was a broad mix of people who founded the country, and those who say or imply that our founding fathers were all christians and set us up as a christian nation, that is just

factually untrue. religious liberty was central. guest: we tend to think they were more diverse than they perhaps were, because some of the most -- smartest ones were the most diverse. jefferson and madison, is being unitarians on steroids, and franklin. franklin said i believe in a guy -- god that gets involved in the affairs of men. that is not be as impaired -- deism. they did not believe in the divinity of jesus. you had adams that did. george washington attended church every sunday at the christchurch in arlington, virginia, and was part of the rectory board there. if you have a majority of the signers of the declaration of independence that were christians, and others as well. they did not find a christian

republic. they founded a secular government. they attempted wed judeo- christian values, where they got the ideals about the rights of human beings, with enlightened ideas of self- government. it was a noble experiment that brought more liberty to more people than any idea about government in the history of the world. host: our two guests, richard land and jim wallis. one personal event that led to your own personal faith? texas,o to mark, austin independent line. good morning. -- martha, austin texas -- austin, texas. caller: i'm glad you pointed out this country was not founded as a christian nation. thomas jefferson was off the

enlightenment. he cut and pasted the bible. it is the -- is not recorded that he went to church very much. if there is a book you can read called "moral enlightenment." -- 'moral minorities.' why has religion sprung up now so heavy? do you not think we should be a little suspicious when rick perry says god told him to run for the presidency and his wife saying the same thing? host: jim wallis of sojourners magazine. guest: let me relate the comment richard made. the founding fathers brought liberty to many, but not to slaves. no matter what their religion was, they were slave owners and they did not challenge slavery, so lot of people were left out. guest: they knew what was the

great unfinished business, but they also knew it would not be a country had they not punted slavery down the road. guest: i would call it america's original sin. guest: from settlement, the original sin was horrible treatment of african-americans and it americans. -- native americans. guest: i would call it america's original sin. regard regardless of their faith, they sinned fundamentally. it is really offensive as a test for public life. to bring moral values to bear, people can name all the times that religion has been brought in to further oppress. you cannot forget martin luther king, jr., and desmond tutu. religion can be the force that

catalyzes social movements and social change. it has been both. you have to be especially critical of the way religion is used and keep open the possibility of faith being the catalyst for social change. host: how long have you two known each other? guest: years. guest: every major social injustice that has changed in our society has changed because people of faith said that it needed to. it started in the dexter avenue baptist church in montgomery, alabama. every major social loophole that has been addressed has been addressed because people of religious faith were activated, based on their principles, to say, this is

wrong. we need to look at the purpose, not the origin of the faith. host: from texas, on our republican line, what is on your mind? caller: good morning. i am comforted to hear the comments of your guests saying -- first of all that religion would be used as a test for public office, recognizing that the government is secular. i am a republican. i support gingrich. i am a non believing republican. he said something that your guests have not said. what he said is, with regard to our founding documents, he said that the declaration of independence is a founding document that binds us as well. the declaration of independence -- we have no way of amending

that. the constitution does not mention god except for "the year of our lord." it is simply a form of dating a document. host: thank you for the call. guest: i go with abraham lincoln, who said, "fourscore and seven years ago." the founding document of our country is the declaration of independence. the constitution is an enabling document. "in order to form a more perfect union" -- cannot separate the constitution and the declaration of independence. the declaration of independence is the reason for the nation being. the constitution was the legal, enabling document. the declaration of independence

spends a lot of time talking about the things the british had done that disqualify them from being a legitimate government. reasons for forming a new government were laid out in the declaration of independence. without question, i think lincoln is right -- that is the founding of the american nation. guest: he talked about all men being created equal. that principle of equality and fairness is very much in our dna. that is what occupy is about. when things feel unfair, trust disappears. we always -- all the movements richard talked about for about

moving toward equality. this nation wants equality to be a principle, a value. americans want that to be the foundation. guest: jim and i could have a debate about this -- is it equality of opportunity for equality of outcome? i want an opportunity society where people have at least a threshold of opportunity. we reward those who do things a character. guest: most americans want equality of opportunity. we are losing opportunity. we have less than europe has

now. the inequality is an inequality of opportunity. host: you have been patient. good morning. caller: i am a ron paul supporter. he is 100% pro-life. there are some people who are pro-life and they are pro-war. this violates 4 of the 10 commandments. he never spoke a lie. being honest -- it is mentioned many times in the bible. i am an orthodox jew. god is not the god -- america's god is not the god of israel. guest: i listened closely to ron paul.

i came away thinking about the isolationists. he is an isolationist. he said we should withdraw from the middle east and let them sort it out themselves. the last time we did that, we got the holocaust and world war ii. most americans hate this reality -- without american leadership, the world gets up to really bad things. even in the 1990's, europe, nato could not be served -- bestir itself to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide on its own continent, until bill clinton finally said to nato, we're going into kosovo, whether you join us or not. we're going to stop this ethnic cleansing. once we said we were going to go, the british, french, and germans said, well, if you are going to go, we will go with

you. without and u.s. leadership, we would have continued to have -- without the u.s. leadership, we would have continued to have mass rape and ethnic cleansing. we cannot have isolationism. we would have great suffering if we were to withdraw from the world. host: what is the moral difference between a religious state, israel, iran, taliban- controlled afghanistan, and a secular one? guest: i really thought ron paul was terrific in the debate the other night, challenging america as an empire. the war in iraq was indefensible. it has caused a tragic waste of lives and resources. it breaks my heart. it was unnecessary. it was wrong. the war in afghanistan, the

occupation -- the longest in our history. he is ready challenging policy. he is being beat up. it is not isolationism to talk about the reasonable role -- guest: is not isolationism to withdraw all american forces within -- it is not isolationism to withdraw all american forces within our borders? the reason that north korea has not invaded south korea is because of the 20,000 american troops at the demilitarized zone. guest: the body of christ does not agree. they do not think america is the protector of their faith. this notion of america -- guest: ron paul wants us to withdraw from all of our alliances and bring all of our forces back within the united states.

i am sorry. christians and the rest of the world do not determine what i think america's role is -- christians in the rest of the world did not determine what i think america's role is. i do believe in american exceptionalism. i believe god has blessed us. it is an obligation and responsibility. the only reason that most of the people in the world have any freedom today is because people in the united states have been willing to die for other people's freedom. we did it in world war i, world war ii, vietnam -- guest: what about -- guest: we do not always do the right thing. ron paul would have us do nothing. to never do anything is not the right thing. guest: i would hope you agree that we are christians first and americans second.

i would tend more to agree with christians around the world than christians who are shaped more by their nationalism than their faith. neither of us believe in their religious states. -- in a religious state. we both believe government should be secular. there is no affinity here for a religious state of any kind. guest: government sponsorship always corrupts true religion. caller: your on our republican line with richard land and -- you are on the republican line with richard land and jim wallis. caller: i want to go back to the format. the republic that we have could not have been formed absent the existence of god. you take what mr. land said earlier, that the declaration of independence is the foundation document and the constitution is the

implementation document. founders set aside a concept that is unique among all governments of the world, that our rights are endowed by our creator and dark inalienable -- and our inalienable. absent are rights coming from our creator, this republic could not exist -- absent our rights coming from our creator, this republic could not exist. guest: if you compare us with the french revolution, they declared a quality and for trinity and liberty -- the quality and paternity and liberty. they did not base them on anything beyond themselves. it led to a dictatorship. ours was based in something other than ourselves, based on his belief that these were god- given rights -- this belief that these were god-given rights. they had rights under magnet

card and under english common law that allowed them -- magna carta and under english common law that allowed them to revolt because of laws that were given to them as englishmen. without an over weening fate in a create for, it would have been difficult to understand -- overweening faith in a creator, it would have been difficult to understand -- the declaration of independence. they claimed the right to independence and forming a new government as free-born english men. you cannot separate it from the english revolution. guest: while we, as christians, would say those rights derive from god, religion has no monopoly on morality or democracy. there are people who believe as we do who are not people of faith. is it that you cannot have them apart from god is not true -- to say that you cannot have them apart from god is not true. we have allies all around the

world who are not people of faith, and they should be respected for their convictions as well. host: "the big part of the problem with the religious right is that the country is second to their faith." is that a fair -- guest: actually, i think the reverse is true. i think a lot of people on the religious right, their primary commitments are to an economic philosophy or nationalist view of american, foreign policy, often put in the context of faith. that is why i am troubled by the increase of gingrich in the iowa. a lot gets thrown in there. i think we should be questions first and americans second or third or fourth -- christians first and americans second or third or fourth.

leaving my country right or wrong is not able to offer a critique of their own nation based on their faith. guest: certainly, render under god that which is god and caesar what is caesar's. our primary allegiance is to guard. we're christians first and americans second. any christian who practiced otherwise would not be practicing a true christian faith. host: "in god we trust" is on our currency. mitt romney responded to a question about that phrase. >> i know there are some people who would like to make this nation a secular nation, who want to take god out of everything that exists in our country. they tried to say it is constitutional. it is a little hard given that our founding document, the declaration of independence, notes that we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit

of happiness. how do you take god out of america when the declaration points out it is god that gave us those rights and the first place? i believe we should be able to have a religious -- rights in the first place? i believe we should be able to have religious ornamentation in the public square, regardless of what faith. it is important as a society to recognize that we look to god for many of our blessings. host: that was mitt romney last week in sioux city, iowa. last month, the president took in the congress for passing a resolution making "in god we trust" part of a national model. -- motto. here is what he had to say -- national motto. here is what he had to say. >> you have been debating a commemorative coin for baseball. you have been reaffirming that

-- "in god we trust" is our motto? that is not putting people back to work. i trust in god, but god wants us to trust in ourselves by putting people back to work. guest: these issues are so symbolic and so comical. the issue on currency is "in money we trust." i wish it was "in god we trust." you cannot serve both god and money. that is what the gospel says. one of two americans are now poor or low-income. that is what the bible talks about as a significant, political issue of our time. these symbols -- like the war on christmas -- are comical. trees -- my kids love christmas trees.

calling "merry christmas" at a shopping mall is hardly a test of the christian faith. jesus -- we incarnation of god hits the streets and is going bang -- is born to a poor woman in a dirty, animal stall. this is meant to be good news -- to the poor, peace, goodwill to all men. these are, sideshows' away from the real meaning of christmas -- these are comical sideshows away from the real meaning of christmas. guest: "in god we trust" has been determined to be a historical statement by the supreme court. it is not a violation of church and state. we have a higher percentage of americans who say that religion

is very important in their lives. i think the most important issue in this campaign is that we are practicing a generational theft. you are borrowing 41 cents of every dollar that we spend. the sentiments -- the 10 commandments say that it is wrong to steal. air stealing our children and grandchildren future. if we do not find a way to rein in our spending, we will bequeath to our children and grandchildren, all of them, a significantly lower living standard than the one we have enjoyed. we have been living beyond our means for 30 years. now the chickens have come home to roost, first in the state governments, and for us. we can only print money that does not have a value behind it for so long. we have defined a way to rein in federal spending. we have to find a way to grow the economy. we cannot get out of this problem just by cutting funding. we have to find ways to grow

this economy. when the economy grows, you have more tax revenue coming in, and that helps to balance the budget. i really think that this is known to be the biggest discussion in this campaign. nowe coming to what is known as the great recession. it is certainly the most profound recession that i have known in my lifetime. it is heading more middle-class people than any recession in my lifetime. i know more people personally who have been out of work for over a year than at any other time in my life. guest: we have formed a circle of protection. roman catholic bishops, the association of evangelicals, the salvation army. we are all saying that this is about choices. is every line-item of military spending worth more than 10.4 million malaria bed nets, which they are about to cut? deficits are moral issues. how you resolve them is a moral

issue as well. you cannot take the deficit on the backs of the poor. how you do it is a moral test. host: jeffrey in washington, thank you for waiting. caller: it is a wonderful to have this program where americans can call in and be part of this wonderful conversation. i would like to give you a little background about myself. i am a poor, white man, 45 years old, conservative my whole life. first of all, i'd kill myself as a christian man -- i bill myself as a christian man. the founding of the country was based on christian values, not that they are perfect or absolute. but from the beginning document, the thought before the beginning document, all these ideas were being filtered through christian values. they were not as arbitrary as some people think.

they were set in stone. that would be the right way to refer to them. they were written before we were here. our morals and standards that were supposed to conduct -- they are morals and standards that we are supposed to conduct ourselves with. we can claim to be a christian society and have some question now used, but unless each man within leadership -- some christian values, but unless each man within leadership takes these ideas of what is right and wrong and begins filtering them through the ideals that god has set forth -- where we go wrong is where we take these ideas and apply them to ourselves. host: thank you for the call. richard land? guest: we really should say judeo-christian values. the old testament was certain the excepted by christians as

part of god's revelation -- certainly accepted by christians as part of god's revelation. i am more comfortable saying that it was founded on judeo- christian values. our founding fathers were great men with outbursts of genius that gave us this nation. they had blind spots. one was race. another was women. women did not get the right to vote until the 20th century. they gave us a means to improve our government as we found flaws and mistakes in it through the amendment process. we have used it on numerous occasions and great benefit. i think that the 13th amendment and 14th amendment, which are vital to society today -- i think of the 13th amendment and 14th amendment, which are vital to society today. some people would claim that the majority are christians, but

we often do not behave that way. we cannot separate the economic issues from moral issues. we spend $700 billion per year on means-tested welfare programs that are mainly there to make up for absent fathers. 81% of african-american, single mothers, if they get married, are immediately lifted out of poverty. 46% of white, single mothers, if they get married, are immediately lifted out of poverty. we have to address this crisis of fatherlessness. we have allowed two generations of men to walk away from their obligations and responsibilities as fathers and husbands with relative impunity. ronald reagan said the greatest mistake of his life was signing no fault divorce in california, and i agree with him. host: politico is reporting that bob bender platz -- bob vander plaats has called on

michele bachmann to quit. some disagreement and debate in the churches on her to endorse. -- on him to endorse -- on who to endorse. does this matter? does it make a difference? guest: all -- i will let richard talk about the republican race. i am just sort of watching it. i do think probably the greatest advantage barack obama has in the upcoming election is this republican field. i have heard them called "comedians, clowns, comics," and all the rest. this has not been an this has not been an impressive public discourse, watching these debates. i'm not sure it matters much if michele bachmann stays on the stage or not all for how much

longer. we need a better public discourse in this nation. host: you have an evangelical leader calling on a candidate -- guest: i do not know him, but he is acting and behaving as though he wants to be a kingmaker in iowa. guest: he is frustrated. a lot of evangelicals are frustrated the same way they were in 2008. john mccain was not their flavor of the month. mitt romney is not their flavor of the month, but you have a situation where if you had one candidate -- you have rick perry at about 6%. rick santorum and about 6%. michele bachmann at about 6%. those three together -- that is 18%. if they were one candidate, that person immediately becomes a player. there is great frustration among evangelicals that their support is splintered among some many

candidates that the people they like least are doing better because the people that they like best -- there are too many competing for the same slice of the pie. he has supported santorum, but his group remains neutral, which shows you the extent of the splintering. guest: looking from the outset in, this is your territory here, but i do not understand when people who say they are family values of angelico's support gingrich because they like his politics. santorum is at least consistent with all of their views, so why do they not support him? >> yes, but perry and bachmann -- there's not a dime's worth the difference when it comes to social issues when it comes to

bachmann and santorum and perry. if you had one candidate as opposed to three, they would be running right up there. >> there are other christians who would look at that and say those candidates are missing a huge areas of christian values. it is a political philosophy, a conservative political philosophy. i am a conservative theologically, but conservative politics would say marriage is the issue. you and i agree on that, but wall street misbehavior and criminality is an issue that is also true and they do not address. host: our coverage will continue through next week leading up to the iowa caucuses. we have one minute left. i asked earlier a question about an event that shaped you. quickly, what would that be? guest: it was a summer day in

houston, texas, in 1963. august 28. i watched martin luther king, jr., on television from the washington mall. i have always been raised in a home where i was taught that racism was not only wrong, it was sinful. i realized that it was not enough to say that racism was wrong, that i had to actively oppose it. i did, from that moment forward. >> about the same time, a church elders said, "you have to understand that christian is nothing to do with racism. that is political. our faith is personal." i would say now god is personal but never private. we are talking about the public character of faith. if we do not get this right, a lot of young people, like your caller would say -- i like

christ, but not the christian. host: gentlemen, thank you for a very interesting discussion on religion and politics. come back again. >> another view now on religion and politics from "washington journal." is one of the 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 , 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. 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 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." 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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? 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 -- 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 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 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 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. 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