campaign efforts in wisconsin and has the latest on the recall efforts targeting scott walker. and then jennifer lawless has the results of a study examining the underrepresentation of women in u.s. politics. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [video clip] >> we could consolidate them all into one department with one website, one phone number, one mission, helping american businesses succeed. host: the president says he wants to trim bureaucracy and that is what we will talk about for the first 45 minutes in this edition of "the washington

journal." today is saturday, january 14. the president's proposal to reorganize government is the topic of discussion for the first 45 minutes of the program. you want to get involved in the conversation, the number is 202-737-0001 for the democrats. 202-737-00024 republicans. 202-628-0205 for independence. send us an e-mail. if you are on twitter, you can follow us. and there is also a conversation going on on facebook. this is the headline this morning in "the richmond times dispatch," talking about the president's announcement yesterday at the white house.

obama 6 power to consolidate u.s. agencies. he cites the need to eliminate duplication, but some doubt that congress would give up -- obama is asking congress for expanded power to streamline agencies, he says would bring the federal government into the modern world. on friday, in the east room, obama said that the move would save money and modernize a bureaucracy that has not been updated since 1984. "no business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations," obama said. he goes on to say, "you would not do it when you were thinking about your businesses. so why is it ok for our government? it is not. it has to change." and regarding the entities that

he wants to change or streamline, there are six of them appeared the following entities would be merged into and as of yet agency. they are the commerce department, small business administration, u.s. export/import bank, overseas private investment corp., and the trade and development agency. our first call regarding the president's proposal to streamline several government agencies, he says he wants to trim bureaucracy. our first call comes from lansing, mich. on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for letting me speak. i do not understand giving the president this much access to power. it sounds a little bit to me like the sleight of hand that you vote chavez took -- that

hugo chavez took to transfer his country into socialism. obama does not seem to ever remember the middle class -- real middle class -- meaning other than union. the rest of us that own small businesses make up the middle class. i think we are getting dumped on by the president. host: let's move on to our next call that comes from port orchard, washington. caller: thank you for taking the call. host: what do you think about the present proposal? caller: i think it is a great proposal. i did not vote for him. i never vote for somebody on the left. if president obama continues down this route of making a

saint to doberman, he will get support from both sides of the aisle -- making a sane government, he will get support from both sides of the aisle. host: would he get your support in the fall? caller: no, i never vote for somebody that far to the left. i got involved in the last election by making more than 3600 calls, telling citizens about -- the house was changed because people wanted a change. i think he realizes that he will let their elected unless he does something more than the senate. we need to shrink the federal government. if people misunderstand that, if you were to compensate everyone making $1 million or more, it would only keep the government going for 14 months. if that is not a boulder pushing

you at the press of this of this government, you do not understand this country. caller: i did not see the federal trade commission in there. i do admire the president taking visible by the horn -- thaking this bull by the horn. government does need to be streamlined. they do not need all of this model in business where they really compete each other for oversight. him and being the executive and responsible for the bureaucracy, it is very responsible for him to do this. host: up we will go back to the newspapers print on the front page of "the washington post," the story says that obama 6 part to streamline government.

david nakamura and bed o'keefe "president'keeffe -- obama signaled his intention to do some streamlining of his own." the proposal comes at a politically opportune moment for the president who has faced sustained republican criticism that his administration has failed to tame a bloated federal briard proceed. next, dennis from rhode island. caller: good morning. i think that president obama has really proposed a great plan. unfortunately, i have

difficulty accepting with what the republicans are going to do, especially the tea party. they will probably go against this just to make sure he does not get credit for reorganizing the government. they will find something wrong with it and push it to the hilt. host: the tea party, part of their whole reason for existence was smaller government, lower taxes. now the president is talking about streamlining the government and reducing the bureaucracy. you do not think that there might be some in the tea party will go along with this? caller: i wish there were, but i do not think there will be. i think they will find some reason to scuttle it. one of the reasons -- one of the overriding issues for the tea party and republicans is to make sure that this president is not reelected and they do not want him having a favorable image going into the elections. i think they will find some reason -- we do not know what it

is yet, but they will find some reason why they cannot possibly give him the power to do the kinds of things that he wants to do. i wish they would. i think it is a great proposal. i think it applies to both sides. like you said, it should appeal to them. but he ran into the same problem with the health plan. many parts of the health plan were once republican proposals. once president obama had them, they had to switch sides to make sure that he was not reelected or given something positive. host: baltimore on the one for democrats. caller: yes, i am sorry. this is c-span, right? host: yes it is. who is this? caller: this is carolyn. host: where are you calling from? caller: mississippi.

host: what you think of the president's proposal for streamlining agencies into one group. caller: i do not completely agree with it. host: why not? caller: because they have different functions. i do not think that the government agencies are the problem. i think it is people trying to prejudice folks against government workers. i think the problem is the loopholes. we are not generating money. that is the problem. everybody is so weak minded and scared of their political position. let me tell you. it is the wealthy people who are killing us. even with church donations. we have people just doing double dipping. you have churches worth billions of dollars for paying no taxes.

they would rather cut medicare and social security. host: in "the houston chronicle" this morning, they have this headline. during his announcement, the president also talked about helping business. [video clip] >> from the day they come up with an idea, they need a patent. today the day have to build a

product and have to break into markets overseas. one website, easy-to-use, clear , when the apartment where all of our trade agencies would work together and ensure that workers and businesses can better exports by enforcing our trade agreements. one department dedicated to having our businesses sell their product to the 95% market beyond our shores. with this authority, we could help businesses grow, save businesses time, save taxpayer dollars. host: we are talking about the president's announcement yesterday to reorganize government. the next call comes from and hearst, massachusetts. caller: thank you for my call. i think this is preposterous, trying to make the government more monetarily viable.

the government is not a business. this proposal will get some republican votes for the president. but i think it is not a serious proposal. i want to respond to the caller who said that the president is too far left. i think that he is not paying attention. the president is too far to the right. he is supporting slavery in bahrain, political repression in yemen. i think he's too far to the right. i think that is why the republicans barber putting up a credible position. host: republicans in chicago. caller: i was just listening to the conversation on streamlining the government and i do not know how many new jobs the president will trade with obamacare. it always amazes me, after the fact that people will streamline stuff -- if it needs streamlining, why did you not do it in the new order of business. it is your business to take care

taxpayers' money, to do it efficiently. in every election season, everybody will get rid of the fraud in medicare and nobody ever does it and nobody ever attacks it because they use it for a thing to get reelected. host: let me get your thoughts on a tweet from stella. she writes, what exactly does it shrink? caller: that is very good. it is just that they move these jobs around and nobody ever ends up losing their jobs or nobody ever and the streamlining anything. they just keep treating agencies, keep creating agencies. i think the american public is sick of people wasting our tax money. host: i will, go ahead, joe.

what do you think of the president's proposal? caller: i wonder if it is truly a great proposal. smaller government, the less freedom to have. bigger government, the more freedom to have. obama should point out that all of the money he spends is to help us out of the ditch that the bush administration's put us in. thank you. host: bloomington, ill. for republicans. go ahead. caller: it is really funny that he is doing this and everything. in my opinion, it is a ploy to get the republican vote. he can sit there and streamline these small programs and everything. but what about the programs that really need streamlining that are causing our big hulking government to eat away all of

the money that the taxpayers are giving them? host: richard, we have something here from jodie who writes this. caller: you know, we do want to reorganize government. that is the biggest thing. but obama is searching in the wrong areas. we need to focus on the big areas, the ones that really make a difference to the taxpayers' money and to the freedoms of americans. host: give me an example of a bigger area that needs to be reorganized. caller: medicare. all of the intimate programs need to be reorganized. like you're talking about before, removing fraud from them, which i have not seen a single thing that he has done to do that. host: richard in bloomington, ill. on the front page of "the financial times" this morning --

back to the phones, new castle, delaware on the phone for the democrats. caller: i think it is a very good idea to merge these agencies together. it will cut down on duplications, obviously. i have worked with both the federal government and for the private industry. i have seen employees be very

dedicated and very competent the conservatives or the republicans to continue disrespecting the government employees have never worked for the government and yet they use here say to concoct all of these negative statements about the people who work for the government. they're not lazy. they're very good people, the ones i have met. i hope the merging of these agencies do not result in a lot of lay offs. that is counter-productive to getting the economy going if you start laying people off. most of the laws were brought about by lobbyists. they do not work for the boy scouts or the little sisters. they work for corporations who want laws that favor the impaired people better wake up to see that government does help them. host: thank you. "the atlanta the journal

constitution" has this. you can read more about that in "the atlanta journal constitution" this morning. fredericksburg, virginia, go ahead, joe. caller: i do not think that we can say yea or nay to the president's proposal until we have the details. the devil is in the details. how many millions of dollars will we say?

and will it produce what i consider to be a bloated federal government bureaucracy? thank you. host: next is susan in illinois. she is calling on the line for democrats. go ahead, susan. we do not have susan there. let's go to this one. are you there? caller: yes, i am here. i think the government is too bloated. talking about cutting, i think that senator cockburn still on the floor three times or four times and did a whole stay with his staff on how many duplicates programs there were in all of these different departments. the president never talks about this. and congress and the president should get together and cut some of this. it is repeat, repeat, repeat. there were seven different jobs programs and job training programs or something like that. i think the coburn study is

called "back to black." there is so much they can cut, but the president is afraid to fire anybody or let anybody go in the government. and the congress, too. because then they will be screaming all over the place. i do not see how they will cut. they are not serious about it. and the president has to do something now because he was to be reelected. that is sometimes how it seems to me that he is, last minute. he had two years to three years to do this and he could not cut anything? all he could do was seem to spend. host: john steinbeck sends us this. what do you think about that? caller: i think that is true. i have even heard some democrats say that paul ryan's proposal was pretty good. he could, but he disses the

republicans. three times, i saw him go to high school and had kids bullying at the republicans. is that responsible to -- and had kids booing at the republicans. is that responsible to do with young kids? he is supposed to be an adult responsible person. host: that is susan. next up is rick on airline for independence calling from canton, ohio. caller: is amazing to hear all of these callers. they want to cut social security, medicare, there should be trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in accounts that were paid into these accounts over the past 30 years by the middle class. in the same breath, there are $6 trillion worth of cash that is

being courted by corporations in the top -- and the top 1%. they do not talk about that. they're sucking half a trillion dollars out of our economy every year based on the manipulation of oil. these three illegal unfunded wars are costing us each year. and all the republicans can do is talk about taking the money that was put into these funds by the middle class for 30 -- they want to take that money. and they want to ignore the fact that the top 1% is sitting on $6 trillion in cash. host: the lead story in this morning's "charleston post and courier" talked-about candidates stating their case in south carolina.

you will be able to see that meeting, the town hall meeting for undecided voters on c-span this afternoon at 5:30 p.m. as first town scott's hall meetings. nell, again, macdona on c-span this opinion at 5:30 p.m. back to the phones, duty in georgia on our line for

democrats. caller: good morning. i have a concern about the es because my relationship with these agencies have shown that the administrators and the workers are already entrenched obstructionists. on your program, you have so many people that call and say that they cannot get processed or get anything out of them because the people who are heading these agencies have been there so long and they have been entrenched. they are their own fallers with their own ideologies. is it possible to pull federal funding from southern states that do not want -- a state like texas that follows no federal

guidelines and no such thing as due process at all? host: next up is uconn, okla. -- yukon, okla. caller: i just wanted to say what the other lady said, that this is an election year and he just does this because he wants to show the republicans this because they have been for this for so long. and now he wants to do it because he thinks that it will put more people in his corner and get him reelected. we cannot stand another four years of this man. host: thank you. we continue to look at other stories in the news this morning and continue our conversation. we're talking about the

president's proposal to reorganize government. "new york times" this morning, reversing himself and what has become an awkward interparty estimate for democrats. next up is arlene on our aligned for democrats from jacksonville.

caller: i have to tell you. i am not voting for president obama again. i voted for him because my children, all grown-ups, wanted me to be alive when i saw the first black president. i did this for my children. i listened to what he said and i realized that he was double talking everybody. ok, i will give you what you want, but you will not be happy. i know that democrats are not happy with this president. but they will not be happy with the republican nominee either. we are being manipulated by the two parties.

when he decided to go along with taking away our freedoms in this plan for -- i forget what it is called -- where you can be a united states citizen jailed indefinitely without any representation, that really topped it for me as a democrat. i am no longer a democrat, republican, or independent. i think i will write in for the rest of my life and i in 63 years old. host: carrollton, texas, go ahead, fred. caller: i would just like to say that we live in a republic. as that, we live under the rule law. no one person should make decisions for all of us.

if the president wants to reform government, all the has to do is petition congress like everybody else does. congress will evaluate his plan and then make decisions for all of us. we are represented by our members of congress, and make that decision whether the president has a good idea. but granting the president broad authority to make decisions on his own about the structure of our government is not the right way to go. that is called a dictatorship. and the lady that's progress before me about the fact that we can be detained indefinitely without due process of law, people, you need to wake up. our rights are being trampled. host: hold on. stay with me. i have a note here from mary.

what are your thoughts? the republicans will basically reject anything that the president has to say. caller: i think the president is the leader of our country. i wish he was a good president. but like the lady before, he just double talks us. he does not really provide leadership. host: we have this story from " the wall street journal" this morning.

to that end, we want you to know that this week, on the news makers program, the president of the southern baptist convention, he is one of the reported attendees that have gathered this week of social and religious conservatives to discuss campaign 2012. during his interview, he discussed what religious and social conservatives are looking for among the republican presidential candidates. we will show you why dr. land said that mitt romney does not fit the description. [video clip]

there are concerns about how deep and real his stance on pro- life is and on same-sex marriage. the debate on saturday night in new hampshire was how hard to get romney and santorum and gingrich, all three, were in making the distinction of being for gay rights, but against same-sex marriage. back in 2008, the only one of the candidates who could put together two sentences that made sense of why they were opposed to same-sex marriage was mike huckabee. now you have those three in particular on that saturday night debate who were quite articulate and eloquent in making the distinction in ways that the general voting population could understand. but mr. ronnie's campaign is not defined by the social conservative -- but mr. romney's campaign is not defined by his social conservatism.

host: back to our discussion regarding the president's proposal to streamline government and put different agencies all under one umbrella. we have this call from pat on our line for independence from washington, d.c. caller: what i am looking at right now is that we have to reform -- we talk about checking balances and now we're talking about reorganizing. you have three branches of government. you have the executive branch, the congress, and the u.s. supreme court. we the people have given no or our power -- given over our power appeared when i say that, it is the power to reason. we elect these individuals into office and we do not cultivate -- we do not go looking for

answers. right now, the streamlining is said because there's too much processing and not enough .ccess to america appeare if america is not serving us, then the contract is broken. we have all this on the table right now. we have all the entrees. everything is on the table. streamlining is on the table. we were given the answers and then change came into effect. host: we have another tweet. we also have an e-mail this morning from new york.

next up is troy on our line for republicans calling from massachusetts. caller: yes, ok, i would like to comment on obama's proposal to streamline. the problem is that all he is trying to do is take away from congress the oversight of all those agencies. he did not say and his proposal

is just to schauble things around and take power away from thingss -- to shalshovel around and take power away from congress. he will create another superagency, which is the last thing we need, more government. host: what would be the difference between streamlining or the consolidation that the president is talking about and the creation of homeland security that occurred under the bush administration? caller: i do not know. under the bush administration, which bush administration? host: george w. caller: bush: if you -- george w. bush. caller: if you recall, we had something called 9/11. something needed to be done and he did something. host: ted on the line for

democrats calling from oregon. caller: as far as streamlining the government goes, it just seems to me that the only way to get things done here -- i mean, all of these issues boil down to one thing, money. we're $15 trillion in the whole. i am 53 years old. i have been paying taxes and social security since 1972. i just find it shocking and appalling that you can turn on any tv screen and, at one point in time for a 10-minute span, you will get somebody saying that i owed the irs $20,000 and i hired this guy and i ended up paying $800. i have done everything i am supposed to hear. i graduated from high school. i went to college. i joined the air force. i was honorably discharged.

i paid my taxes. i am a union journeymen plumber. i claim 00 every week. i do not mind giving of assam a tax-free loan. but -- giving uncle sam a tax- free loan. i do not mind ratcheting up the irs and giving us the money owed us.

back to the phones, bella vista, ark., charles on the line for republicans. caller: he will supposedly streamline. well, he has already added 40,000 to 50,000 government jobs in the four years he has been there. this will supposedly streamline and save 6000 jobs. if streamlining did not work for homeland security, there is no way. the government cannot streamline anything. they do not have the ability to turn anything around. it is like the titanic. he tried to turn it around. it sought. unk.e is no way that -- it sa there is no way that the federal government can do anything efficiently. the tea party is the only group up there that has seen thoughts

-- has sane thoughts. host: thank you.

that is on the front page of this morning's "richmond *." -- "richmond times." ruby is next on the line. caller: va usually tries to do things pretty good. but this is just another example of one person telling a whole state what they can or cannot do. this is not right, america occurred wake up. there is no reason why we should not have the right to vote for the person we want. our president tried to put the census taking under the executive branch and take it out of the commerce department. that was not right.

i think to do this now is to eliminate the commerce department and put the census into the executive. this is not right. we all better wake up. they are ignoring the separation of powers. this is what he has been adamant about doing and is what he continues to do. host: thank you for the call. in "the new york post" --

next up, memphis, tenn. -- sheryl on the line for independence. caller: president reagan sold our country in pieces and parts overseas and big money took over. i was in college when reagan became governor. and he kicked all of the american students off of the campus to work depended on financial aid because he eliminated it. it was a plan to take over this country from outside countries through big money. host: what does this have to do with the president's proposal to streamline garment? caller: if we do not realize

that our country has been sold over to foreign countries, then we are missing the point. all of these other issues do not matter until we get it right. we have been taken over. host: "the new york times" features an obituary of an award winning journalist, talking about how he worked for abc news and cbs news. over three decades, he covered seven presidential campaigns, the assassination of john f.

kennedy, the patty hearst kidnapping, the war in lebanon, and the middle east process. next up, raleigh, north carolina. robert, what do you think about the president's plan for streamlining the government? caller: i think he should streamline the government. if he consolidates it, it will save money. i think the president has done a good job in trying to get jobs in america. he is bringing some of the jobs back. remember, this commander in chief took care of affairs around the country. host: they do for the call. in 45 minutes, we will be talking about wisconsin as a battleground state. coming up after the break, we will continue our discussion regarding president obama's proposal to trim government agencies. we will be doing that with charles clark.

we will be right back. >> i believe that it is important to emphasize that, while there is this moral to his memory and it is great to have a holiday and that we have streets and schools named in his memory around the world, it is important to not place as much emphasis on martin luther king on the idle and not enough emphasis on the ideals of martin luther king, jr.

>> take a look at the life and legacy of martin luther king, jr. it is what you want when you want. >> in this episode, we will look at rick perry's surprising comments. >> i think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data. >> i rate different comments by politicians on a scale. if you say something really outrageous that is completely inaccurate, you get four pinocchios. >> in his "washington post" fact checker column, he rates the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> whether they are deliberately lying -- i do think that, if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when

it has been pointed out that it is not true, but they know that they're saying something untrue and they will just say it anyway. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: charlie clark is the senior editor at magazine. welcome to the program. guest: thank you. glad to be here. host: the president made the proposal yesterday to streamline federal agencies. tell us what he hopes to accomplish. guest: as part of his year-old plan to streamline government, they want to make it more user- friendly for the business community and they want to eliminate duplication. he first mentioned it in the

state of the union address last january. he assigned his officer of the manager and budget to consult with agencies and the business community and with lawmakers. it was supposed to come out this summer, but it was delayed by some of the other issues going on, such as the debt ceiling crisis and switching the commerce secretary's. they finally got it ready right before the martin luther king holiday. host: what specific authority does the president seek from congress in consolidating these branches of government? guest: the white house has proposed that congress enact what we call the consolidation authority act, which would fast- track procedures for the executive branch to combine agencies.

it is centered around the business and trade functions of the commerce department, the u.s. trade office, the import bank, the small business association, -- the small business administration, i am sorry. immediately, with presidential authority, he is elevating the small business administrator to cabinet-level status, which is reported as large -- as a largely symbolic act. various presidents have had cabinet officials invited to attend cabinet meetings as full equals. that happened in the case of karen mills, who is a small business administrator. but that may change if congress enacts this law.

the first act that the white house would like to have is the consolidation of these six agencies into one group in which case, the small business administrator may or may not still be in the cabinet. host: this requires an upper down vote in nine days. no filibusters. if the senate becomes controlled by the republicans, would this further hamstring the president? guest: there is some interest among republicans in doing this because, number one, it would reduce the number of federal employees by an estimated two thousand full-time-equivalent employees. and, in theory, it would make the government more user friendly for the business community. there is a little resistance -- the chamber of commerce, for

example, has expressed concern about the u.s. trade representative's office not being demoted. they like a cabinet-level office are running that agency. but republicans are planning to keep an open mind on this. president obama did say that he hoped it would be bipartisan. host: we are talking with charlie clockclark. we would like for you all to get involved in the conversation. we have a special line this morning for this segment of the program for federal employees, 202-268 -- 202, 628, 0204.

let us know which branch of the federal government or which agency in the federal government you are working in and we will give you a chance to pose your question or to comment. i want to read to you from an article that you put out that came out yesterday. you were talking about the republicans. you go on to write that is -- he goes on to say that it is important that any effort to make significant changes to federal commerce and trade programs must be done carefully and in a way that protects america's small businesses. it sounds like there are some republicans that may be on board

with this, but they do not want to rush into this. not in such significant support of the president. guest: having spent more time of the plan -- on the plan, he was more willing to listen. and some of the small business groups, the national small- business association, say the same thing. in both cases, they refer to their own agendas immediately, which have to do with reducing regulation, which may be part of this issue. but simplify the procedures and making access to the government and transparency improved is what obama is trying to do. that has potential to be bipartisan. host: our first call from wyoming. good morning, randy. caller: thank you. i would like to make a comment

and then i will listen to you. the fact of the matter is that it has been reported that the obama administration has added 139,000 federal employee jobs since he took office, not counting military jobs. this is a political move. and to cut 1000 or 2000 jobs is like a third of 1%. he will get a lot of press for streamlining when the fact of the matter is that he will save $3 billion, which is good, but a drop in the bucket. this is purely political to try to reach republicans at their own game. everybody knows that mitt romney is a great manager of business. host: we will leave it there. charlie clark, go-ahead. guest: it is true that the number of federal employees has been upwards and there has been a movement by the obama people to beef up the acquisitions

forced to rely less on outside contractors. but it is also true that they had campaigned to cut government waste and they have been spending a lot of time in the last three years looking for opportunities to streamline and move things over to online rather than printing too many products, as an example. you can say that it is political, but it is also something that any administration in the 21st century would be trying to do, which is to make government more lean and nimble. host: "the new york times" is one of the newspaper's reporting this this morning. the savings

it does not seem like these are large in terms of money. there is not a large amount of money involved in this. but maybe it is a message sent to congress and the american people by the administration. guest: yes. also, streamlining and reorganizing the government, as i published back in the spring, is an uphill battle and it requires breaking a lot of china with people who have a vested interest or are champions in various agencies. i think this is an effort among the obama administration to make the process, delivery, thoughtful as opposed to just across the board arbitrary numbers. a lot of debate over what to cut is not always inform by which

these agencies actually do every day. host: our next call comes from colleen in oshkosh, wisconsin. colleen is a federal employee. where do you work? caller: i had to take a medical resignation from federal meat inspector. i worked the slaughter floor. i support president obama's ideas. but anything that he does try to do will be blocked by the republicans in congress. he has tried to do many things that would be good for the country, the jobs bill, and other things, and it is also blocked by the republicans. host: charlie clark. guest: that is true on the major budget issues and the tax issues, creating the new consumer financial protection bureau, health care reform, and

the financial reform law. but it is possible that, in this area of reducing the number of bureaus within agencies and reassigning some of the functions to get by with fewer employees, even though it is an election year, i would not rule out a bipartisan cooperation. host: martha is on our line for democrats. caller: the president is proposing smaller government. that is usually a republican suggestion. the bottom line is the republicans do not want any of obama's plans to succeed. these republicans keep saying obama is not a leader. he'd let us out of an economic

downturn caused by bullish, and he also killed osama bin laden. i am sure bush knew osama bin laden was in pakistan. how could they not know? give me a break. guest: this will be a pivotal -- election year. host: mark, new york, and our line for independents. caller: if president obama wants to streamline the budget, tell him to put it in a budget, and submit it to congress come and have it voted on, like he should have done last year. guest: there were some delays. they announced last spring they would focus on exports and trade. there was the government

accountability office report in march that identified a lot of duplication in government, and lawmakers from both parties got god to that, and the obama party -- got on that, and the obama party had a report in june that came out with these duplicative functions. it was delayed because of larger but -- larger budget fights. it took until october for the commerce secretary to be sworn in. i think they wanted him to be involved in the transitions. host: our next call for charles clark comes from robert, wyoming, and our lighting for republicans. caller: if all wants to put all

these things into one, were they going to do with the epa when their employees are over- regulating laws, putting people out of business. people need these jobs, and here they are putting them out of their jobs. what is the government going to do about the excessive loss of the epa and their agency? guest: there are two questions. the environment protection agency is of the top of the list of agencies that issue regulations. they do a report on that every month or sell at the white house office of intermission and regulatory affairs. that is separate from the issue of whether federal jobs can be taught. the 1000 to two thousand jobs

will be accomplished through attrition. there are buyouts being offered. they are trying to do as much as they can on a voluntary basis. the president's budget will be put out in early-february. agencies were asked to plan on cutting 5% of their budget. we will see what the budget has to say about the overall total work force. host: we have a graphic from white house.gov that shows a confusing mess at the top of the page, and says now, a business looking for government resources starts here. below that it says "making it

easier to do business in america -- 1 department, one website, one hot line, businessusa. is it going to be that simple? guest: bit -- it is a good visual defect. this is an illustration is trying to look at the agencies from the point of view of outsiders. gary locke was active on this front when he was governor of washington state, where they try to create one-stop-shopping for outsiders. i think a lot of these duplicative functions broke up over the years because each agency has its own culture and once its capability to do with the need to do, and but eventually it is possible for outsiders to come in and isolate

ways is to cut of functions can be removed. the things about the -- duplicative functions can be removed. if you want to streamline government, you should they sit on data and performance, and reasoning about what you want the government to accomplish, rather than just by creating new organization charts and tried to make a chart more tidy. host: our next call for charles clark, senior editor at "government executive magazine" comes from daniel. caller: i support the president. i think he is right on the money. anytime you talk about merging agencies or companies, it means someone is calling to tell their debts. there are people that resist

that. i think what is going to happen is even if you do not succeed in merging all six agencies, maybe two or three of them merge, which should be better than what we have now. i also think we are playing this president short period is a very smart man. -- short. he is a very smart man. epiphany to all of the day, he will close loopholes and the country will. at the end of the day, he will close loopholes and the country will be better for it. host: let's move on to new york. john, and our line for democrats -- republicans. caller: he needs to do away with these as ours that are sucking the money out of the

system. they are not elected. covers is not doing their job -- congress is not doing their job. the average pay increase that it congressman gets is more than a social security recipient gets, in we pay for that medicaid and medicare through our paychecks. do they? but, the rich people are getting medicaid and social security. >> there are several issues there. -- guest: there are several issues there. members of congress do have health care plans that are similar to many in place. they do pay some premiums. he raised the question about the czars and i know presidents from both parties have relied on them

in the case of illegal drugs or fighting terrorism, and in some ways it is a way of getting around the confirmation process in congress which has gotten politicized, cumbersome, and discouraging to job applicants. the president appointed a czar is also a way of drawing immediate attention to an individual in hopes it will focus public attention of a major problem. host: in his announcement yesterday at the white house, the president talked about duplication. we want to look at what he had to sit and get a response from charles clark. [video clip] >> there are five different entities dealing with housing. there are more than one dozened dealing with food safety. my favorite example, which i mentioned last year, it turns of

the interior department is in charge of seven in fresh water, but the commerce department handles them in salt water. now, if you are wondering what the genesis of this was, apparently did have something to do with president nixon being unhappy with his interior secretary for criticizing him about the vietnam war, so he in whatnot to put noa would have been a more sensible place. no business or nonprofit leader would allow this kind of duplication or unnecessary complexity in their operations. you would not do it when you are thinking about your business. why is it ok for our government? it is not. host: charles clark of "government executive magazine." guest: i was surprised that

president obama repeated the anecdote about the salmon. a couple of academics say that is not factually right because they changed environment when they swim upstream, and that is why there regulation in the use of the food chain is subject to two different types of regulation. i do know that some of the environmental groups were not happy with part of the plan. for example, -- -- removing noaa out of congress into interior struck as a way to change its culture and removing technical expertise. i also reported that senator mark warner, who has become a specialist in the agency performance issues, said he welcomed president obama's

proposals, but that it did not go far enough and points to two other areas of duplication, citing 82 different teacher quality programs and 10 different agencies, and 56 programs across 20 agencies that deal with financial literacy. i suspect those agencies will be following up on that criticism soon. host: prior to becoming a senior editor at "government executive magazine," charlie clark was a respondent. he was also a senior editor at the governing boards of universities and colleges, and started off as a staff writer with the national chapter of education on the economy. he is here talking with us for about the next 13 minutes regarding the president's announcement yesterday to try to trim government agencies. back to the phones.

san antonio, texas. john, on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. in my opinion, unless the government decides to cut itself in this year, today, we read: to go to the same crisis in greece. government employees do not create wealth. they create back. every time he hire someone, you have to find tax to pay them. these departments have been around for years that the federal level -- just like the department of education in 50 states. why do we need one at that level at that expense? they should bring their wages down to the private sector.

they are blowing smoke. if they do not try to do something drastic, not something that would take 10 or 20 years, because in that time they will be more in debt that we are right now. host: charles clark? guest: this question of whether the federal workers are paid more than the private sector is controversial and debated. difference dollars arrive at different conclusions and it has to do with different levels with salaries. differentiation is different at the managerial level and they might be at the blue-collar level. it is a complicated subject that we write about. host: we have a tweet.

host: does this proposal reduce the number of regulations businesses would have to deal with the next guest: i read the recent survey that only one person says -- deal with? guest: i read the recent survey. a lot of businesses right there congressmen and congresswomen asking for regulations to be curbed. that is a very real force. i think said deregulation movement in the questioning of the cost/benefit analysis is proceeding on a separate track. the obama administration has an initiative on that front. host: back to the phones on our line for independents. ed, delaware, you are on

"washington journal." caller: someone needs to test the kool-aid. i like to address these custom calls about killing osama bin laden. the president did a great job. could you imagine if he had not? i spent 30 years in the air force. i remember when clinton went after him five times and never got him. my biggest concern has to be this deficit. our kids will be burdened forever if we do not do something soon. guest: just to clarify, obama last week as for an additional increase in the debt ceiling and that reflects money that has already been spent that the government had to borrow. the $3 billion that this plan would probably save would be

over the next 10 years. host: we have a statement from representative darrell issa, chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee, which has jurisdiction over toward mental reorganization -- and governmental reorganization, and he is reiterating that he cooperate with congress. the chairman says he has been disappointed that the white house has not embraced earlier bipartisan congressional efforts seeking collaborative engagement of proposals to reorganize government. does it seem like the president by making this announcement yesterday is going to engender more cooperation, or will he be seen as being more cooperative with both sides of the capital?

guest: jeff zients, the deputy director of the office of management and budget says they consulted with a lot of lawmakers, and i would be surprised if darrell issa was not among those. he has a very broad -- he weighs in on a lot of issues. he would be a key player. i thought the fact that he did not dismiss the obama plant out of hand means they're probably ready to start talking. host: early indications that chairman tehran ism the scheduled hearings for this sometime between now and -- chairman darrell issa may schedule hearings for the sometime between now and november? guest: i did not heard that. host: or for government workers. who do you work for? caller: i work for the patent

and trademark office. i do not think the president is going far enough as far as streamlining. we have metrics we used in order to evaluate a employee performance. this is done quarterly and every fiscal year. if you do not need those standards, you can be fired. to follow up on that point, i have worked for other federal government agencies, and i literally saw people sitting around, not doing anything, and when i asked my boss for work to do he looked at me like i had the plague -- "how dare you ask me for work to do?" most government agencies do not have metrics in order to evaluate a person's

performance, therefore they are sitting there for years and years not doing any work. host: before we get a response from charles clark, what were your thoughts about the president's announcement yesterday becks be think there will have any effect? -- yesterday? do you think it will have any effect? caller: know. -- no. it is ridiculous. there is a lot of waste in the government. computers that are not being used. host: you have given us a lot of -- to work with. charles clark? guest: most people agree there is waste in government. there is also a stereotype of a permanent worker and is being lazy and impossible to fire that might or might not be trillion the real world. it is a message problem that --

true in the real world. it is a message problem that many federal unions are trying to act against. the obama administration and some republican members of congress -- this is an area of operation, are trying to sell off the federal properties. if there are obstacles and laws such as those that give homeless advocacy group's first bid some federal properties. that makes selling off properties more challenging than people might realize. there are about 14,000 they're trying to unload. host: the next call comes from larry calling from arkansas. caller: there has been extreme amounts of controversy over the republicans and the over- spending, like back in the for wire pliers.

they need to check themselves. they are over-paid. the last time they gave us a minimum wage raise they voted themselves 3 pay raises. i can devote themselves pay raises but not do something for the general public? -- why can they vote themselves pay raises but not do something for the general public? guest: they have not given themselves three -- races for three years because they know it is it tough political issue for them. president obama proposed 8.3% -- 0.5% raise, which might be a tough sell in congress. host: another query on our line for republicans from charlotte, north carolina. caller: since then, you guys

are awesome. without you, i do not know what this world would come to. they should go further than trimming these agencies. they should eliminate them. they should eliminate the department of education, the department of energy, particularly after the solyndra scandal, and numerous ones because the founders never intended for these to exist. jefferson wrote about this. i worked in the private sector my entire life. i know that stereotyped that there is a higher level of accountability in the private- sector as opposed to the public sector. so, obama has finally come to his senses and agreed to trim some federal agencies. they need to eliminate them. guest: this is one of the issues

i dealt with in my cover story on why it is so hard to eliminate an agency. a lot of politicians would like to have a scalp on the wall, and you saw that during the republican primaries, when many of them could not agree on their own views about which agencies they would like to get rid of. most agencies and programs begin with some sort of champignon congress. even as the champion is long forgotten, there are people attached to the existence of the agency, and there is this question of where would those functions be carried out if you were to abolish the agency? the best example is the education department set up under the carter administration in 1978, and people criticized it as a reward to the teachers' union for supporting jimmy carter, but when the reagan people came in and made plans to

eliminate it, they thought better of it, and even the education secretary came around to the idea that the department should continue. it is a very debatable point about which agencies should go. i just think that the people who want to abolish them should be required to explain exactly how those functions would be. out, and which would not. host: yet "the wall street journal, called this morning -- journal" this morning they write -- incentives are for inertia,. protection, and blame shifting. host: your thoughts?

guest: well, you know, the internet has changed communication so much with federal agencies. people go on websites. they used to phone up a bureaucrat and ask them to mail a brochure. it is harder for agencies to hide from the public. no 21st century administration, regardless of who is the president next january can rest of laurels. there has to be a dynamic, constant adjustment process to the change both in our economy and in technology in the way people communicate. host: lou, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i learn from you guys every time

i listen. i voted for president obama because of all of his ideas, and a plan to vote for him again. i think what he is trying to do is great. he is trying to streamline, but as you mentioned there are all out of politics involved, a lot of strongholds and lobbyists that will not let him do what he needs to do for us, but i believe more and more of the people are really looking and listening to president obama. i am very proud of him. go obama, 2012. host: do we anticipate any blow back from this announcement from unions or groups like that, much like the teachers' unions with the education department? guest: there are two unions that weighed in. the national traders union have

studied the problem. the american federation of government employees issued a statement saying there are cautiously studying the plan, but are concerned that if the goal is to eliminate positions, that is not the same s streamlining. they would hope that the administration and congress would be careful in deciding what kind of changes would be needed to make things more efficient, but not necessarily just arbitrary numbers of jobs eliminated. host: baker, louisiana, bob, on our line for republicans. caller: well, it is just another one of obama's fantasies that he is going to cut anybody out of the government. anybody that will believe that has got to be, i do not know, in another world.

he is not going to cut anyone that is going to vote for him, especially this time of year. host: charles clark, your thoughts about what bob has 26? -- to say? but guest: let's look at the budget released. there are a lot of federal employees that are required to retire part because they see cuts coming, and partly because of morale. i think there probably will be some cuts. many of them may be voluntary, rather than layoffs. host: our last call for charles clark comes from bill, a federal employee, in texas. where the work? caller: i work for the federal

aviation. there are obviously waste -- there is obviously waste and i agree with the streamlining proposal. i think the point that has been lost in the conversation here is that this is all about helping small and medium businesses to get better service. i think this will do that, provided that the opportunity is available to streamline this. one of the other callers said this is a political thing. anything there the president does get has any kind of bipartisan support is going to be called political. one other thing -- i am also a graduate student has utilized the student loan program. that has been a great success, as far as i'm concerned.

host: we will leave it there. charles clark, you get the last word. guest: one of their republican presidential candidates talk about making washington inconsequential, but i do not know any businesses that do not study with the government does. they all consider the government relevant. they have a different agenda from some of the other lawmakers and political leaders, but they do not consider this to just ignore with the government is doing, and that is why this debate will go on for quite awhile. host: charles clark is senior editor at "government executive magazine," and you can read some of his work at governmentexec.com. thank you for being on the program. guest: my pleasure. host: will be talking about women in elective office, the death of the break we will look at our battleground states --

but after the break we will look at battleground states it is -- states. it is saturday, in january 14. you are watching "washington journal." ♪ >> in this place he will stand for all times among the monuments of those that are found in this nation, and those who defended it, a black preacher, no official rate, or title, who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams, and our most lasting ideas. >> today, at 9:30 a.m. eastern,

president obama is joined by civil rights leaders and the king family for a dedication. also, later today, civil wars dollars look at the direction of the war as well as northern and southern strengths and weaknesses. sunday, after serving from 1960 through 1970 in the navy, now senator john kerry became a vocal opponent of the vietnam war. his story this weekend on c-span 3. >> i believe it is important to emphasize that while it is great to have this memorial to his memory, national holiday, streets, schools, and hospitals named in his honor all over our nation and world, it is also important to not place too much emphasis on martin luther king

the idle, but not enough emphasis on the ideals. >> take a look a legacy of dr. martin luther king jr., online, at this is an video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: greg gilbert is the washington bureau chief from the wisconsin sentinel. he is here to talk to us to look at a battleground state in 2012, wisconsin. talk to us about wisconsin's return to been a swing state. in 2008 it was squarely on the side of the democrats, and now not so much. guest: wisconsin has swung but

the nation. when president bush was on the ballot, it was determined by 0.5%, and then obama was a blowout. in 2010, the state flipped the republicans took over. we do swing, and it is a very volatile environment nationally. host: give me a couple of reasons. guest: when the current republican governor took over, there was a huge debate over his budget, particularly with the bombshell of his push to roll back collective bargaining for public employees, and make it much more difficult for unions to organize and certify, and collect dues from their members. this was kind of a political

earthquake in the state because of the role of unions play in the elections, and massive protests, a big national story led to a round of recall election is less summer which resulted in the defeat of two republican legislators, and now we're looking at a likely recall election involving the governor, which is only happened two times in american history. so, an extraordinary set of events. when you put it together in a battle ground states in a presidential year, it is like nothing i've ever seen. h., the wisconsin primary is more than two months away. and other republican candidates started to look at wisconsin? are they starting to -- have a republican candidates started to look at wisconsin? are they starting to woo wisconsin, or is there a feeling that by the time we get to their primary in early-april the nomination will be wrapped up?

guest: given the way mitt romney is going to let it by not be much of a race. wisconsin follows super tuesday but one month. they could focus on the early -- they have been focused on the early states, and that combined with did you meet this around the recall fight, and i am not sure it covers -- the candidates want to get too involved. i am sure that will come. host: we are talking with craig gilbert. we would like to get involved in the conversations. the numbers -- our special line goes to

wisconsin residence -- 202-628- 0184. you can also get to us through e-mail and twitter and follow the conversation on facebook. if the primary process for republicans does go past super tuesday, and into wisconsin, is there an early thought on who will benefit from having stress the race out that far? who will be the most popular in wisconsin? guest: wisconsin has an open primary so there is no registration by party. anyone can make the decision to vote in either party. that means, especially in a year without a meaningful democratic primary that independent voters and democrats would be free to vote.

it is a broad the electorate. there is a big republican bayesian wisconsin, -- republican based in wisconsin, so it would not be like the iowa caucuses. who that benefits -- it probably does not benefit of canada it like rick santorum, again, if we're talking in this area where the races still meaningful by then. mitt romney has done more than the other candidates in terms of early groundwork, and he is probably the kind of candidate that would do ok. host: our first call for craig gilbert from "milwaukee journal sentinel" comes from dawn in tennessee. caller: the last time i called

the next caller called me and did it. idiot. governor walker started messing with the unions. i am a yellow dog democrat, and very tired union person. i think -- retired union person. i think that is a bad thing. guest: we talked about this before. is becoming a polarizing figure, even compared to other governors, kind of the way president obama is, and president bush was. when you booked the polling, and democrats overwhelmingly dislike the guy, and republicans overwhelmingly supports the guy. if people are entrenched. he is a lightning rod in the state. as a result of the fight over unions, public and please --

public employees are a big population in any state. this is petty electric. these are electric issues that he has stepped in the middle of. host: and joe on our line for independences. caller: i am an older guy. i have never belonged to a union. i was a construction contractor, and when i went to a new city i would always look for the union. there were usually the best folks to do a job in construction, and you could depend on them. the main thing about the it is are remembered as a young man, about 10 years old, i went to work for a gentleman throwing papers out of his trucks, and this gentleman who is deceased

now, as i am almost 80, he threw out the left side. this has a point. bear with me. he had been one of the greatest athletes in this part of the state, had scholarships everywhere, they told me later on. he only had one arm. he lost it in an accident. host: as interesting as this as i have to make a call count, and you are slowing me down. caller: he threw out the left and i through the right, and i asked what he got for the arm when they cut it off, and he said he got two weeks' pay. he made it through life selling papers and fireworks, but he lost his future because there was no progress of movement. he did not get anything.

that is what we're trying to revert back to. if people forget how things were before the progressive movement took place. no retirement, and no insurance -- all this came about because of the unions. whether you were union or not, they would provide these benefits. host: is there a thought that the unions might be going away in wisconsin? guest: wisconsin has an interesting history. it has progressive traditions and was the cradle nationally for things like social security and workers' compensation. it is imbedded in the history of wisconsin and it also had a history of reform. if you compare wisconsin with other states, it is certainly a more vibrant union labor movement and a lot of other places. union households represent typically about one-third of the

elector. is it the constituency. host: next up is randy calling from river falls, wisconsin. go ahead. caller: i am union, but i am old school union. i am for health and safety and the union. -- in the union. with the state of wisconsin is doing as far as the union's goal, even a local ones, they can still negotiate wages and health care and everything else the only thing different with this collective bargaining is the state takes the money out of their checks and gives it to the union. the union does not get to work for their money. now the unions have to go to the people and say we're going to do this for you and this for you, and if the people do not like what they're telling them, they deducted paid three g they do

not get paid. the governor has the state coming along -- they do not get paid perianth the government has the state coming along pretty good. i am old school, health and safety. a lost my point of view here. anyway. host: randy, we will leave it there. two calls talking about the unions. will that be the biggest issue when we finally get a republican nominee? guest: i did not think so. in the recall election, the biggest explosion in u.s. history involving state legislators in wisconsin, and a lot of the debate was not about unions. it was about the budget, spending and taxing decisions the governor has made. the feeling was people were

entrenched and there were not going to change minds. the debate was much broader than that. if and when there is a recall election involving the governor, of the debate will be much broader than that. the presidential candidates will get sucked into the recall controversy wisconsin one way or the other. host: ron and our law and four republicans from boswell, indiana. caller: my grandfather and father started a union in chicago. the truth about the story is the union makes up less than 12% of the working public in the united states of america. it is a given thing. we all understand that, but 12% does not make up the majority. the majority rules. if you get out there, and all of them will tell you get out and vote. it is the only way we can

change any of these situations. as far as wisconsin, it is the same thing. we are sick of the corruption, and agreed. they're going to throw him out. people are not as dumb as they were even 10 years ago. host: craig gilbert, "milwaukee journal sentinel." guest: it is interesting to hear people talk about their own history with unions. this is why this debate has been so intense. in a state like wisconsin, a lot of people have the history in their family of union membership or of public employees. i set out to figure out how big the constituency of public employe is represented in the state of wisconsin. akin to the conclusion 25% -- i

came to the conclusion that 25 percent to 30% have a public union member in the household. these really pressed hot buttons for people. this is becoming a personal, political fight that has divided families. host: said antonio, texas, gladys, you are on "washington journal." caller: i think the unions are being unfair to the american people by being determined to get rid of the unions. that is not right. that is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they started america. it is about a garment by the people in for the people. this governor is acting like a dictator. he does not have the right to

take the power away from the people. that is my objective to his stance on the big unions. he does not ask. he goes in and says i'm going to do it whether you like it or not. the people put him in office and i hope the people take him all. guest: part of the debate in wisconsin has been over the fact that what happened was collective bargaining was not an explicit campaign issue in the 2010 election. it was a good environment for republicans. scott walker ran on getting concessions for the unions, but did not run on a rolling back collective bargaining and all the rules and union certification that was implemented. part of the shock to the system, and even the governor has acknowledged that he did not live a foundation for this political giveaway he should have.

that was a big reason for the melodrama we had, andy intensity of the protest. -- and the intensity of the protest. that will be part of the debate in this recall election. i think his response to that is you elected a republican government -- a clean sweep, and this is what we have done with that. now, people will decide whether to ratify that or not. host: in "the washington post's" this morning under the headline "endorsements show little effect" --

host: given the situation governor walker finds himself in right now, will the republican nominee for the presidency be angling for governor walker's endorsement or will he keep them -- him at a distance? guest: it will be important to get entangled in this debate. we saw this in ohio where there was a similar issue with a referendum to restrict and roll back collective bargaining in ohio. at one point mitt romney was tabled up in his position on that issue because i think it is awkward for these national candidates.

they really -- there is a demand in their political base to take sides. there will be a demand in the republican base to line up behind what scott walker is doing, just like there has been a demand and the democrats' base to support unions in this fight. you do run the risk of alienating people over that fight. host: john, connecticut, and our line for republicans. you are on with craig gilbert, the washington bureau chief of the "milwaukee journal sentinel ." caller: i want to make a comment about the super pacs. i think it is a great travesty in this country that the little man cannot donate $250 left eye

did to john anderson of long time ago budget like i did to john anderson a long time ago. -- like i did to john anderson a long time ago. there's a lot of corruption. it is tantamount to bribery. i think it should be stopped. i am happy to see newt gingrich now agrees with barack obama of a sudden when all the republicans booed barack obama for chastising the supreme court, and now, out of nowhere comes newt gingrich of all people because he is effected by this, to come up and applaud barack obama. thank you. host: craig gilbert. guest: this has been a bipartisan debate it crosses party lines. both parties have an interest in not exposing themselves to massive amounts of attack advertising. there are different issues --

where people can spend, what people can contribute, and then there is disclosure. the citizens united issue did not settle disclosure. it -- it is possible to see as more candidates come into the crossfire of the super pacs, you might see support in both parties for at least writing tougher disclosure laws about the big super pacs. host: our next call comes from days mills, wisconsin, dennis, you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. thank you for being on talking about the wonderful state of wisconsin. i blog under free wisconsin. i would like to steer the conversation away from union talk, which is the beginning of the controversy in wisconsin, and get into things like the

american legislative exchange council where scott walker is appearing in texas raising more funds to ed to his $10 million treasure trove. he received -- he was fined $500,000 for not disclosing the campaign contributions he received. i would like to move away from possibly just talking about the unions. what about alec, and americans for prosperity and scott fitzgerald, and scott walker. guest: there are groups on the right, just as there are groups on the left, that put money into

wisconsin. alc has been accused of setting the policy agenda for a lot of republicans at the state level. that does come into the debate. the caller mentions the money scott walker has raised. there is an interesting wrinkle in the recall law compared to other states. the bar is pretty high in wisconsin. you head. 540,000 in wisconsin -- you have to collect 540,000 in wisconsin. at the same time, there is on limited fund-raising on the part of the target of the recall. . it time right now where positions are handed in. the governor can raise money in and -- on limited amounts from his supporters. it is disclosed, but it is a

huge political asset for him, and he has been spending a lot of that money on television, before he even has a democratic opponent. -- host: talking with we are talking with craig gilbert, the washington bureau chief of "milwaukee journal sentinel." in addition, he is also cover the past six presidential elections as well as numerous house and senate races, written extensively on the battle for swing states in the upper midwest and was a former speech writer for the late senator daniel patrick moynihan. back to the phones. mike, on our line for

republicans, calling from honolulu, hawaii. caller: i'm enjoying this, mr. gilbert. i am a republican over here. i also belong to a union that takes money out of my check every week for the democratic cause, and if i did not go along with the item out of the union. it is the people's republic of hawaii that i belong in. anyway, the unions over here are skewed because we have it electoral votes, that we do have a woman here, a nice jewish ex- governor, area debt, a moderate republican, and she is running for senate, the senate seat of daniel ek lockout. she has a good whack at it, i believe.

if we keep our mouths shut, as mr. gingrich should have, we would have had gingrich as a nominee, but it will go to the conventions, i believe. what i think right now is that as a republican we have to really keep a low profile. we have to be very patient, and let the candidates vet, and the strongest person will rise. i myself think obama will tear romney apart in a debate. guest: i just came back from iowa and new hampshire. it has been an interesting race in a lot of ways. not the most suspenseful nominating process we've seen because you have a candidate, mitt romney, a sort of the consensus front-runner who will be difficult to stop, but a lot of crazy twist and turns, up and

downs that reflect the appetite in the republican base for the perfect candidate -- a candidate that speaks to their core conservatism, indicated that is viable. we have seen one candidate after another ride that wave and crash. we do not know how good a candidate or effective mitt romney is going to be and the general election. we have seen him perform well, well-financed, but we have seen him have his stumbles like in new hampshire when he made some gaffs, some comments, and fanned this story about a line of attack from his opponents that in his private sector career he raided companies and caused people a lot of jobs.

host: "wisconsin bankruptcy filings fall 10% in 2011" -- so when we get to april and beyond to the election in november, who stands to benefit from this headline the most? president obama or the republicans? guest: id is not a normal course of events to have them on the ballot in the same year. in a way, they are tied to the hip. if they are bad, that is a problem for both scott walker and barack obama.

the recall election is going to be more than just about unions. the governor made an explicit promise about job creation, promising that he would create thousands of new jobs by the end of his first term. he is not on track to do that. that will be an issue in his election. it is going to be fascinating to watch how the economy of fax both these political figures, both a republican and a democrat. host: speaking of which, i have a tweet from florida from gordon. take us through the process. guest: we do not know the answer. we have a governor who is on the air with campaign ads. he does not know and he does not know who his opponent is going to be. there was a series of windows in the wisconsin recall law.

we are expecting the democrats to submit a number far in excess of the 540,000 signatures that they need by law and then there is an undetermined length when the signatures have to be verified. the board has to go through this process, hundreds of thousands of signatures, trying to verify them and then calling an election. there could be a primary that will affect it. it could be anywhere from april until july or august. we do not know who the democratic candidate is going to be because there is a good chance we will have a democratic primary. the ducks are not all lined up in a row for one person. host: back to the phones. grace is on our line for independents. you are on the "washington

journal." caller: good morning. my voice is a little shaky this morning. host: you are doing just fine. caller: people black-and-white came from the south years ago to get union jobs. that was the start of a greater america. that is when we opened up small businesses and all work together. now, we are so doggone divided. no one is thinking about taking care of one another. everyone is caring about how much money they can get out. it is greed. thank you. i am sorry. host: san bernardino, calif., stephanie, you are on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. in regard to your last comments of your guest, the difference

between scott walker is he can push through his policies [unintelligible] obama has not been able to push forth his policies or his plans. so i believe that all democrats need to go out and do what they believe so we can push through progressive ideals. guest: president obama did have a democratic legislative branch after he got elected in 2008. scott walker had a republican legislature that he got elected

with in 2010 which is how he was able to pass his budget. there was a series of recall elections last summer which claimed the jobs of two republican legislators. the republicans now have a one- vote margin instead of a three- vote margin. one of those votes is a legislator from a relatively democratic rural district who opposed the union changes. now is a dissenter on some of the parts of the republican agenda. right now, the republicans have lost some of their control over the legislative agenda. we are going to see another round of not only the gubernatorial election, but there will be more legislative recalls. the democrats are targeting for more republican legislators this spring and summer. so the makeup of the legislature could change this year and in

the november elections. host: back to the phones. mark is calling from boston, massachusetts. caller: i would like to applaud scott walker's efforts. i think it is admirable. it is not the unions of the 1930's or the 1940 spending what people are seeing today is far different than that. we have a state police that make $150,000 a year and a tire around 50 or 55 with a full pension, six figures, for the rest of their lives. that would be equivalent of saving $7 million or $8 million in your 401k for in come. this is just blatant greed and on fairness. -- and unfairness. guest: scott walker has become a

hero on the right because of the stand he has taken, going after the unions in wisconsin. he has been obviously vilified by the left for the same reason. it is interesting to see a governor so polarizing within a short period of time of taking office. he was in milwaukee county executive, not that well known in the rest of the state. suddenly overnight, he becomes a defining figure for all sides and a guy who is probably close to a 50/50 politician now for the rest of his term. host: should he not be recalled, when would his term be up? guest: it would be up in 2014. one point i should note -- the last recall election was in california under a different set

of rules. the way the california ballot look, you had an up or down vote on recalling gray davis, yes or no, and then if the yes's outnumbered the no's, you had a choice. in wisconsin, it is a regular election ballot. you are choosing between scott walker and a democratic candidate. so it is a little bit different. you can argue in some ways is more favorable to scott walker because it is a choice. if he is not popular, the committee -- he can make the argument that he is still better than his opponent. host: how is the democratic opponent chosen? guest: by primary. unless there is a consensus in the party of who the candidate should be. host: when is the primary?

guest: it will depend on the petitions. the primary could be in april, may, or june or even later. it depends on how long it takes for the bureaucracy and the courts to sort out the battle over the petitions that are submitted. host: back to the phones. florida, phil is on our line for republicans. caller: i wanted to ask your guest about -- wisconsin has always had a strong anti-war movement of there. i have been involved for years down here in florida. i am calling on the republican line because i registered republican to vote for the only candidate, republican or democrat, who is against the wars, who have pledged to stop these 10-year, ongoing wars. what i am seeing in the anti-war

movement, even though the democrats got in and took impeachment off the table in 2006 and massively funded the wars in to the obama administration, since then did not apply the same standard of impeachment to obama. now we are going into possibly iran. has the guest seen any folks moving from the democrats, the union people there, give up that line loyalty to a party and switch over to supporting the anti-war candidate ron paul? guest: i do not know if i have seen that. ron paul is one guy who might do well depending on the circumstances because there is an anti-war tradition in the upper midwest that we see over time. he draws a lot of his support from independents.

independents can vote in large numbers in a state that has that anti-war tradition. if we still have a race in early april, that could help ron paul. we saw him do ok in iowa. host: good morning, tracy. caller: thank-you. mr. gilbert, i beg to differ that scott walker is polarizing the state that we live in. i would argue that would be the leaders of the unions, especially the teachers' union, the fire union, the police union. scott walker's reforms were , the taxexpose corruption payer dollars to provide lavish benefits and health insurance through their own privately owned it union-owned insurance

companies. you will never see that reported in your newspaper. you are totally against scott walker and pro-union. your newspaper is not fair and balanced. host: before we get a response, tell me a little bit about you? you have been watching throughout the caucuses and primaries so far. if the primary season extent, who would you be voting for? caller: for president? host: yes. caller: i will support whoever the nominee is. anyone but barack obama because he is president of the union of the united states. guest: my newspaper actually endorsed scott walker. but she does bring up a good point. i do not think i said scott

walker is the reason or certainly not the sole reason that wisconsin is polarized. he is a polarizing figure and barack obama is a polarizing figure. if you ask republicans and democrats what they think of these people, you get a gap in perception and attitudes when it comes to whether they approve or when they view them favorably. a gap that is much bigger than what we have seen in the past. we are a polarized country and a polarized stake before scott walker came along or barack obama. george w. bush was the most polarizing president we had in recent times. that is all i mean by the word "polarizing." you can get into an interesting debate to what degree the state is further polarized as a result of scott walker and the battle over his policies.

it has been bitter in a way that we have not seen in a long time. the 2004 election between george bush and john kerry, extremely polarizing and uncivil compared to our traditions. host: we have an item from an p.r. with the headline -- -- from npr with the headline -- what is the situation in wisconsin? guest: they did pass a voter i.d. law. this has been a pretty vigorous debate in wisconsin partly because of what i mentioned before, having two outcomes in

2000 and 2004 deciding in the democrats' favor. you saw a groundswell among republicans, the perception that the election was tainted because it was so close, suspicions about voter fraud. there has been a debate back- and-forth about whether voter fraud really exists or not and whether these new laws would address voter fraud or a problem that does not exist. wisconsin is one of those places where that debate is the frontlines. host: our last call for craig gilbert from the "milwaukee journal sentinel," california, ruby is on our line for democrats. caller: why are all of those people protesting the democratic candidate? the one that got bumped by that

republican guy who happen to find enough votes somewhere, it was never investigated in. i guess the administration never looked into that. why is that? guest: she is referring to an interesting election we had in the spring in the middle of this debate over scott walker for a seat on our highest court. it was a massive turnout. the more liberal candidate who was the challenger looked like she won the election on election night, but then found there was a mistake and one of the republican counties counting the votes. when the final tally came in, the votes were in favor of the

republican incumbent justice. i do not think there was anything wrong with the results. but i think it is symptomatic of the suspicions you have on both sides when any time we have a close election. host: we have been talking to the washington bureau chief of the "milwaukee journal sentinel ," craig gilbert. thank you very much for being on the program. guest: it is a pleasure. host: in just a few minutes, we are going to be talking about this report from american university. it is called -- one of its co-authors will be our guest after this break. we will be right back. you are watching the "washington journal."

>> in this episode, we are going to take a look at rick. 's surprising comments on climate change and the scientists behind the research. >> i think there are a substantial number of scientists that have manipulated data. >> i rate different comment on politicians on a scale. if you say something that is slightly misleading or out of context, you might get as little as one pinocchio. >> the evaluates and rates the

truthfulness of political figures and others. >> i do think that if a politician says the same thing over and over again even when it has been pointed out it is untrue, they know it is utnrue and they are just going to say it anyway. >> sunday night at 8:00. >> this weekend, "book tv" today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on martin luther king jr. "walking with the wind, " a memoir of the movement. jonathan writer examines that many speaking styles of reverend king. also this weekend, in a new release, eight new york times washington correspondent looks at the first couple and their

attempt to balance a busy person alive. tonight at 11:00. every weekend on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jennifer lawless is with the women and policy institute at american university and a co- author of a new study. welcome to the program. what is stopping more women considering to run for office in the u.s.? guest: the most important thing is not voter bias. when women run for office, they fare as well as their men counterparts. a series of other patterns like political recruitment, qualifications, perceptions of a biased environment seems to keep women out. host: there are seven factors

that contribute to the gender gap according to this report. the first one says -- guest: that is right. when i open, i said there is no overt bias against female candidate, but women do not know that. the women that we interviewed, women who are well situated to run for office, believe there is a bias in the electorate. about three-quarters of them believe they cannot raise as much money as men. it makes sense they might not put themselves forward. host: the second example or the second factor --

guest: it was unclear what those campaigns were going to have -- what effects those campaigns were going to have. and most believe they were treated unfairly by the media. in a lot of different ways. people said that the media focused too much on their appearance. second, the media placed too high of a bar on them and expected more from them than their male competitors. host: the third factor -- guest: of the women and men that we surveyed look exactly the same. they have the same credentials and qualifications. fewer than half of the women and about two-thirds of the men felt less than being qualified to run for office. it is a matter of perception.

it might be that women might think they have to be twice as good to get as far but it is certainly not concrete qualifications or credentials. host: we are talking to jennifer lawless from american university here in washington, d.c., about the study they have just put out talking about women being underrepresented in u.s. politics. the title of the study is -- we went to get your opinions, your thoughts, and your questions. the numbers are -- you can continue to communicate to us electronically by e-mail, twitter, and the ongoing conversation on facebook.

let's get back to these seven factors that contribute to the gender gap. number 4 -- guest: yes. even though these are women who have achieved the highest level of professional success in very male-dominated professions, when we asked questions about risk aversion, they were far more likely than men to consider themselves risk averse. given that we have competitive elections, it makes sense not to throw your hat in the ring if you are risk averse. host: so if women are making strides in areas that are typically dominated by men, when they look at politics, they are more risk averse getting into politics? they feel like it is more risky to get into politics than these other areas? guest: yes, which is somewhat

counter intuitive given that they have succeeded in these other realms. host: number five -- guest: that is right in terms of time away from their families, a potential loss of privacy, and even going door-to-door to meet voters. they are more likely to be deterred by this activities than men. host: we are going to start taking calls with jennifer lawless of american university regarding her steady. -- her study. our first call comes from new york, tony is on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just wanted to bring up a philosophical point that i think is important. the fact of being male perhaps informs a man in politics or business, manifest in their

decision making, perception, and their actions or reflections. the aspect that is idiosyncratic to females, their ability to think critically, it may be uniquely important. i am concerned about that transformation and what is lost in trying to replicate the male perception or actions or reflections. women need to be careful to keep what is uniquely female. there are things that are important that females bring and could lose when they try to become what is acceptable. guest: i agree with you. study after study finds there are gender stereotypes. women are perceived to having different priorities than and

but these tend to work out in politics. legislators that have a greater proportion of women tend to be more cooperative and reach a unanimous decision is more frequently. i agree it is important not to lose sight between the differences, but it is important to encourage more women to get involved so they can bring their different voice to the process. host: our next call comes from missouri. caller: i just wanted to make a comment that i do not believe there is a gender gap. most of the time when it comes to politics, someone who is an attractive person will actually typically do better than worse because let's think about the fact that you mention sarah palin. guys are way more visual. when it comes to politics, they

were in love with sarah palin. when it comes to hillary clinton, not so much. typically of the gatt is about enough money to run or -- typically the gap is about enough money to run or getting enough coverage. guest: i think it is important to remember that there does not seem to be any bias against female candidates on the part of voters. women to raise as much money as men when they run for office. i am talking about women's decision not to throw their hats in the ring. they are not equally likely to consider themselves qualified to run for office or e emerge as candidates. host: next up is nancy in pennsylvania on our line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal" with jennifer lawless.

caller: good morning. i have been wanting to discuss this subject for a long time. host: this is your lucky day. caller: thank you. i believe if there were more women in politics, and a woman was president, i do not think we would have all of these wars. number one, a woman carries a child for nine months. the labor pains that a woman goes through our terrible. if men were going through this and they lost a child due to war, maybe they would think again about going to fight and kill people. also, the people who believe in the 10 commandments, it says in the bible, "thou shalt not kill." if it does not state that it is ok to go to war -- it does not state that it is ok to go to war

and kill people but it is ok to get an abortion. guest: in the 1980's and the early 1990's, the sex of the candidate or the individual provided some explanatory power of how they would vote. with increased polarization over the past decade, the party is the best predictor of how an elected official cast a ballot. it is difficult to find differences between women and men within the same parties. host: we have a tweet from victor who wants to say -- guest: i do not know how else to say this. voters are really ok with female candidates. they fare as well as men. that is not to say there are some high-profile examples of

women who have lost elections, but those differences come out in the wash. the big barrier is that women are not recruited to run for office and do not think they are qualified to run so their names do not show up on the ballot in the first place. host: could that be said that similar lists be said for men of color? ethnic minorities as well as women? guest: some of the barriers are the same. in terms of perceived qualifications, men are more likely to self-assessed as qualified. men are more likely than women of those races and ethnicities to be recruited to run. host: james is calling from

south carolina. go ahead. caller: i have a couple of brief comments and then a question. toward your last comment about the minorities. i think that was the thing that started in the 1970's and 1980's. i believe that is a phony argument because they projected this thing like -- i know the blacks had to struggle and everything for their rights and everything, and then along come the 1970's and the 1980's, and there was a big movement for the women to say we are just like the blacks struggling for rights. now, ok, that is enough about that. the point i was wanting to make is that i do not really buy into the gender bias as far as women

wanting to get out and run for office. i am in a very conservative state, south carolina, and women run for office here just like in north carolina, another conservative state. they elected a senator from north carolina who was a woman, a democrat. i do think that the democratic partyis more apt to win elections if you are a woman then the republicans. guest: south carolina ranks dead last in terms of women in politics. although we can think of some high-profile female candidates and women running for office, the fact of the matter is 83% of the members of the u.s. congress are men, 44 of the 50 states have mailed governors, 92 of the largest cities across the

country have mailed mayors, and three-quarters of legislators are men. it is true there are women running for office but given that women are 51% of the population, they are under- represented. host: this tweet sent in -- guest: that is a myth. women are actually the most likely to support other women. this is both in the democratic and republican parties. about 50% of voters have a baseline gender preference. it turns out, women are more likely than men to prefer a woman. host: back to the phones. lola on our line for democrats. you are on the "washington journal" with jennifer lawless. caller: i have a comment. i went to school back in the

1970's and i opened my own business. people would come up to my male employees and ask them questions in said of me. it was very biased and i resented it a lot. even though i pulled in $800 a week, i still felt a lot of prejudice. that is my comment. host: let's move on to our next caller, james is calling from palm beach, fla. would take exception with your guest this morning. i, like many men i know, would not vote for a woman for president based on the well- established sotomayor rules. when she made the other pregnant comment, that she is much more

capable of rendering good decisions because she has more background because of the fact that she was a minority woman. i would suggest that there is no woman who has ever been subject to the draft or received a draft notice. i do not see how women can qualify on the same basis as men do for that reason. i would look for someone until such time as women decide to do this and get under the draft. the next, if the guest is successful, it is something akin to what happened with title 9. that is you just destroyed man's opportunity until you get every woman playing the sport that she wants to do. host: you have given us a lot to work with. guest: we no longer have the draft for men. i am not sure that several

decades' worth of sexism and anti-female treatment in the military should perpetuate itself and disqualify women from becoming commander in chief. i think it speaks to the notion that there are some people who will never vote for a woman especially for president but there is a greater proportion of people that will always vote for a woman. host: the name of the report is called -- co-authored by our guest jennifer lawless of american university. we are going to continue our discussion with a call from west virginia on our line for republicans. go ahead. caller: the problem is the media tells us more or less what to think of a woman when she is running for office.

you take for instance hillary clinton. the media treated her pretty decent, you know? they did not go after her child and all that. but when sarah palin came along, and the conservative woman, the media trashes them. they not only trash the woman, but they trashed their family and their kids. i think that is the way it is. the media plays a big role in the way we look at a woman running for office. i don't think a conservative woman will ever play well with the media. guest: i would say that the notion treated and three clinton fairly probably goes against the conventional wisdom and much of the evidence coalesced behind the premise that heathery clinton was probably triggered the most unfairly of any female

candidate running for office ever. i think it was because she had about 17 years' worth of baggage with the media. but i am sure it is fair to say that the media is any harder on conservative female candidates then liberal ones. host: i want to go over this table in your report. world wide rankings of women in national legislature. you have the rank and country on the left side and the percentage of women on the right. the people who i talked to last night as i was talking about this segment -- no one came even close to guessing that rwanda was number 1 with 56% of women in their legislature. equally, unbelievable, the united states was ranked 91 with only 17%.

out of how many countries did you look at? guest: about 180 countries. the united states is below the world wide average. there are a couple of reasons. countries like rwanda as well as another third of the country's have gender quotas. but a lot of the other countries that surpassed that have relatively strong party systems. the parties put forward a list of candidates. in the u.s., we have a very entrepreneurial process. except when you are talking about the presidency or some of the most competitive races. women have to build an organization of support day one by themselves. host: so a parliamentary system of government would probably be more advantageous for a woman seeking political office?

guest: kenwood. the parties put forward the names of the candidates but basically voters vote for the lists themselves. host: next up is texas. you are on the "washington journal" with jennifer lawless. caller: i am a 60-year old woman who is very successful and lives in texas. i think going back to the real reason why women do not run, why i would not run, is the sexual politics. i know it is changing. wonderful. but it is still there. i am extremely careful how i present myself to be liked among very conservative people. i think that is about it. host: what kind of business are you in? caller: i was in computer security but that was outsourced

to india. i have no health care now. host: did you feel like you were under more scrutiny in your job field because you were a woman than the men in your field? caller: of course. i would be the head of the department, and the men would come in and talk to the other men who were under me. there was always that pressure to prove yourself. guest: i think that is a very prevalent pattern. we both believe there are two stages for running for office. the first is thinking about it and the second is whether you actually do it. you talk about the things that actually affect that stage. our concern is that women are so much less likely than men in the first place to have it even appear on their radar screen. host: back to the phones.

nottingham, md., donna is on our line for democrats. caller: i agree with your last caller. i think a lot of women are intimidated. for instance, all of the bank shenanigans and no one goes to jail or get convicted. then you go back to the smartest to case where she -- then you go back to the martha stewart case and she did not go to prison. it is like people are threatened by a successful, influential women. host: martha stewart went to prison because she was convicted of lying under oath. caller: why not clinton? host: good call. guest: women are held to a

higher degree of scrutiny, and women perceive that. a lot of women have been very successful under this heightened degree of scrutiny which is why they are able to win elections. the one thing that i would add though is when we ask people if they ever consider running for office, we were not only talking about the senate or the house races. we were also talking about the school board or city council. those would be racism that would receive a lot less scrutiny, a far less degree of a loss of privacy and an easier campaign and varmint. even in those examples, women were less likely than men to run. host: we have a chart for our viewers to look at for specific offices, local or community office. women are recruited at the rate of 18% and men at 21%.

city council for women, 16%, 22% for men. guest: those are the percentages of people who have said that somebody suggest that a run for office. what is important to realize is that there are no differences between the women and men in terms of political experience or interactions with elected officials. those differences can be attributed to recruiters notions of what a qualified, good candidate would be. they still tend to favor men. host: at the bottom here, the sample size for women is 1766, and four men, 1848. guest: that is a matter of a response rate. we send out surveys to about 8000 people, and we received

completed surveys from about 50% of them. not everybody answers every single question. if you do not answer the question, you dropped out of the analysis. host: back to the phones. georgetown, kentucky, you are on the "washington journal" with jennifer lawless. caller: thank you. could you please convince me why we should have a greater amount of women in politics and a greater amount of equal rights for women in this country for the good of our society? give me one reason why we should. we know all of the negatives as to why we feel like women have been bad for society naturally with child rearing and the keeping of morals and the home. give me one good reason why we

should vote for women. guest: i can give you 3. the first has to do with notions of simple justice and legitimacy. something is fundamentally wrong if women who are 51% of the population when they are a less percentage of elected officials. the second reason has to do with issue priorities. women and men prioritize issues differently. women are former likely to introduce issues into legislators that deal with families and children. in order for those issues to get attention, it is vital for women to get involved. the third reason has to do with role models. there is no way that the next generation will think that politics is an option for them unless they see more women serving in its now. host: we have an e-mail from don

which says -- guest: it turns out, no, that is not necessarily the case. rhode island for example also has a terrible record. they have never had a female senator. they had one woman in their delegation wants 20 years ago. regional differences do not account for the variation. about 70% of the women who served in u.s. congress are democrat and about two-thirds of state legislators across the country who are women are democrat. so the democrats are doing much better job than the republican female candidates. host: the next call comes from alabama. go ahead. caller: yes, i think that jennifer -- she does not understand or is denying the

fact that we lived in a patriarchal society and not a matriarchal society. the way of women is to biblically support men and for women to support their husbands. husbands listen to the women but the decisions are ultimately made by the patriarch. host: i want to show you something in the report. is a quote -- what are your thoughts about that? caller: well, if women work outside the home, and i worked

outside the home for the majority of my 30-some years, but i was home when my children were home and working when my children were not in school. guest: for a long time, people thought that family responsibilities were an impediment to women running for office. those surveyed were similarly positioned professionally, but women are 10 times more likely than men to be responsible for child care and six times more likely to be responsible for household tasks. the good news is that is no longer keeping them from thinking of running for office. the bad news is they are thinking about it while making the bed or doing the laundry. host: we have an e-mail which says --

anything inr lawless, your research to indicate if there was a woman running the country that will -- that we would be better off economically? guest: there is widespread evidence that when you govern in a manner that is more cooperative and built upon coalition building, i think there is something to be said there. by no means does the report make the argument that all women should be elected or all women for run for office. there are just as many on qualified women out there as there are men. what is important is we

encourage women the same way we have encouraged men. host: back on the phones on our line for democrats. larry, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to say thank god that the obama administration passed the law of the equal pay for women. in my opinion, i think women should get paid more. coming from a one-parent neighborhood, i think women are smarter, wiser, and stronger than men. i wanted hillary clinton instead of obama. i am a black man but i chose the woman. host: we want to show our viewers the numbers in the report. state legislators, women make up 23% of state legislators in the u.s. 22.4% for statewide elected

officials. house of representatives, 16.8%. governors, 12%. mayors, 8% 10. michigan, barbara is on our line for democrats. caller: thank you. if women want to run, they should make that their first priority. if they have a family, i think the lord has put them in a position to take their families. and the men do the breadwinning. when it comes to the presidency or the senate or whatever, they need to run up to the same kind of leadership that the men do so we have equal representation by men and women both, and forget

this idea that i am less than they are or less educated. they have this idea that "i have to partake with them or be in a tug of war." guest: i think you are right. the problem is, hundreds, if not thousands of years, have created this situation where old habits die hard. host: katie, go ahead. caller: i am so glad you have put this issue out there. several months ago, i looked up in the state of mississippi which never has had representation at the federal

level. i find it interesting that the governor of their recently took those convicts who killed their wives and stuff, and so many of them were pardoned. i think the issue about hillary clinton and sarah palin -- they were both abused. we can all remember the talk about hillary and her cankles. we can all remember the imagery of sarah palin of her ankles and her shoes in the media. sarah palin was looked at in a whole different way on saturday night live. the idea tha twomen are not detected any differently is false. so many women across this nation are abused by those men, their so-called loved ones. then you go down to a state like mississippi and they get pardoned.

host: jennifer lawless, go ahead. guest: there is no question that the media treats men and women differently. it is probably a result of the fact that women are still such an anomaly in politics. if they do not look the part, they are scrutinized to a different level. host: we have another tweet from jan who writes -- guest: i don't think that. women who are college presidents or chief of staff have demonstrated that they are very ambitious and they do not mind power. host: our last call for our guest comes from pennsylvania, jerome is on a line for republicans. caller: thank you to the cable

companies for c-span. i would like to correct the young lady in the fact that we do not have a draft. if you are male in this country, you must register for the draft. if you do not, you are not eligible for any kind of a federal program. that does not apply to a female. host: you get the last word. guest: i would encourage every viewer out there to think about this. if they are considering running for office, giving it a serious thought. if anyone knows a great female candidate, incurs them to run. -- encouraged them to run. host: jennifer lawless is a co- author of a new study and the director of the women in politics institute at american university. thank you. guest: thank you.

host: coming up tomorrow on the "washington journal," adam beam is going to be talking to us about a preview of the presidential primary held on january 21. will also have linda killian, an author, and then we will finish our program with david cole who is here to talk about the 10th anniversary of guantanamo bay becoming a detention camp. he will be here to talk to us about that. we want to thank all of the folks who have been participating, and we will see you all again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] cable satellite corp. 2012]