about presidential politics and the south carolina primary with william kristol, the founder and editor of the "weekly standard." laura murphy of the american civil liberties union will take your questions about voter i.d. laws at 8:30 a.m. eastern. and we will focus on the housing market with university of maryland finance professor clifford rossi. ♪ host: the house returns today for its 2012 session facing an 84% disapproval rate for congress. according to a new poll, tit has been nearly four years since even 30% expressed approval for congress. on the agenda of house is a vote to disapprove of raising the debt ceiling, a largely symbolic vote and the senate will do this and when it returns. there was a raucous debate in

south carolina last night between the remaining five gop candidates. one tense moment came when former massachusetts governor mitt romney was asked twice about whether he would release his tax records. take a look. [video clip] >> i think i have heard enough for folks saying i will release my tax records. i'm happy to do so. i feel like we are showing a lot of exposure at this point. if i become our nominee and what has happened in history is people have released them in april of the coming year and that is what i will do. host: should presidential candidates release their tax records? we want you to weigh in on that issue -- the numbers are on your screen. many of you may recall that the former massachusetts governor back in december had said that

he does not intend to release his tax returns. he says i don't intend to release them. he was asked about it first by the texas governor rick perry last night in the debate and later was pressed by the moderator in the debate do you think presidential candidates should release their tax records? that is our question this morning. let me show you from tax history.org what they have to say about presidential tax returns.

you can see it there below president barack obama and his tax returns big -- dating back to 2000 and you have vice president joe biden and the 2008 presidential candidates tax returns along with his wife's tax returns and sarah palin who has also called a mitt romney to release his tax records. pat a republican minneapolis, should presidential candidates release their tax records and why? caller: i think they should release their tax returns because we, the people, need to find out where they make their money, how much tax is due they

peg. i do not believe that mr. romney should not release his taxes. i don't know why it is an issue. the reporters should consistently asked them since he talks about creating jobs, they should ask him to release his tax returns. everybody does that sort don't understand why he gets special treatment. host: he said he would like to wait as others have in the past until april. what do you think about that? caller: nobody has done that in the past. the candidates in the past have releases their taxes except for mr. runyan. he ran in 2007 and did not release his taxes. john mccain released his taxes. the guy has been running for office in 1994 and has never released his taxes. we don't know how much he paid. host: this is from politifax.

here is a sampling of recent elections -- taxes were an issue in 2008 and barack obama went first of march in 2008.

rana declined to release returns back in 2008. -- running - romney to press, an independent in florida. do you think presidential candidates should release their tax records and why does it matter? caller: think they should because they take it upon themselves to run for high office to represent we, the people, and it is a way we get a chance to see exactly how they make -- how much taxes they are paying and it gives them a chance to show people how honest they are.

if mitt romney doesn't want to show his taxes, america needs to look at that. host: as an independent, you voted for republicans in the past? caller: in the past, i have voted for the candidate who i feel is fit for the job. host: ok, of who has that been in the past? caller: i voted for barack obama because he showed in the beginning that he was about the people and concerned about the welfare of the people and that is what i based my vote on. host: that is two calls in a row that says the issue of how much tax each candidate pays, why is that important? caller: they take it upon themselves to run for high office and represent the people and give the people a chance to see what they have been up to and how much they pay in taxes and give this a chance to see if

they are honest or not. if they are willing to show their taxes, they are honest and if not, they must be hiding something good host: this is the ruling on this issue -- let's hear from barbara, a democrat, cleveland, ohio. caller: i think absolutely mitt romney should release his tax records. he is holding back. he does not want us to see that. half of america pause median wage is $26,000 and they are paying 28% taxes and he is a

problem paying around 15% or less. however, it will not as rigid it will not give us the whole picture because he has plenty of money in all the banks around the world. host: how'd you know that? caller: because i read. get on your computer and find out. host: where have you read that? caller: i don't remember but within the last three days, i read it. host: warsaw, indiana, go ahead caller: i am definitely not impressed by the people who said they want to know how much everybody makes who is running for the presidency for it i watched the debate last night and honest to god, he said he is the, he will show as tax records. i will tell you the truth -- i think everybody must be envious of anyone who has money. i'm a poor man. i was a barber all my life and i

am dying of lung cancer right now. i did not show anybody what i made. i did not think it was anybody's business. when i die, they will find out anyway. it is just not something i think anybody has to show. that does not mean they are dishonest because they don't show their tax records. there are a lot of people in this country who don't show their tax records. a lot of them are crooks, i will admit, but i think these fellas here know they are being scrutinized very closely and people are just calling them and demanding these guys do things but it is not possible unless you are the president. my lord, give these guys a break and let them figure out how to get the country out of debt and get us back on the right road rather than worry about how much money they made. host: you mentioned mitt romney

said he would release them if he becomes the nominaee. that's good enough for you? absolutely caller:, he is not hiding anything great if he does not get the nomination, then everybody will know what he makes. i was maybe middle income. i only made about $40,000 per year at the highest in my life. i did not turn out and show made.body what i may agre these guys are dead and had an education that was probably better than mine. what they made is for them. this country has gotten so greedy and envious and everybody wants something for nothing anymore. it is too bad i am not sorry i am leaving. host: back to politifacts --

cindy is a democrat in texas, we go to you next, good morning. caller: that guy in indiana hit it right on the button because i think it is invasion of privacy. if he is the nominee he will release the information. the lady from ohio is being in vindictive. a buddy knows the people make up

for income get more breaks than the lower income and their needs to be tax law changes. unless there is like illegal activity and there are shady deals, i don't believe -- it is invasion of privacy and everyone should have a right to do what they need to do. what if people in a position in the company asked -- are asked to turn in their taxes to the company? you will see an uproar. we have laws that people run for office. stating what they need to turn in. you go to a legislator and say the laws need to be changed, i don't see anything shady about it article i think it is getting ridiculous and people are being vindictive. i agree with everything the man from indiana said. host: rick perry said if you release them in september after you have become the nominee, it is too late for our party to

fire you if there is something in there that the party does not like. caller: mitt romney has been around long enough and there is enough news organizations going back to the 1940's when we did not have cable tv and 24-hour news organizations -- people will find out the information we before then. i haven't heard of anything he has done illegal. to me, it is invasion of privacy. people need to lead people alone. mitt romney is the person who can be obama and they should go after obama and some shady deals he did host: this is " the new york times"--

i want to show you one more moment from last night's debate between rick santorum and mitt romney over whether or not convicted felons should get the right to vote again. [video clip] >> governor romney has put out an ad that i suggested that i want felons to vote for prison. i would ask governor romney, do you believe people who are felons who served their time, have mixed but -- exhausted their parole and probation, should they be given the right to vote? >> don't think people who

committed violent crimes should be allowed to vote again. [applause] >> very interesting you should say that because in the state of massachusetts when you're governor, law was that not only could violent felons vote after they exhausted their sentences but they could vote while they're on probation and parole. the as a more liberal position than when i voted for the bill in congress. host: that is from last night's gop debate in south carolina. the primary is this saturday. we are asking all of you to weigh in on whether or not the presidential candidates should release their tax records. i want to show you this tweet -- you can send us your comments to our twitter page. or you can send us an e-mail

journal@cspan.org. " the new york times" editorial weighed in on this --

on the issue of mr. gingrich, it says -- i want to give you a little bit of the latest poll -- this is the front page of "the washington times" --

in "the washington post" this morning, they asked this question -- james from dallas, texas -- should presidential candidates release their tax records? caller: i think they should release the records. when you are hiring somebody want to know about them, thank you. host: fishkill, new york, bob, democratic column. caller: wealthy friend of mine said that medicare should be cut even if life expectancy for recipients dropped back to 65 years old. he did not want his taxes raised. every multimillionaires does

shady deals. i should not make such a blanket statement. maybe not warren buffett. the tax debate is big and -- in this upcoming election and the will to use their clout and connections to keep their taxes low. they are not job creators. their tax dodgers. when someone wants to make money, they do so regardless of taxes. it has always been that way and that's what the bush tax cuts should expire for everyone including the rich, middle class and the tax debate is huge. mitt romney should openly show his taxes and the people do the digging, they -- news reporters will find shady deals going -- is history.xas reporte caller: i think mitt romney is

hiding his taxes for a reason. host: are you still there? now republicans in iowa, go ahead caller: good morning. as far as mitt romney and other candidates releasing their financial records, i think they probably should. personally, i would like to see the president's transcripts. he has refused to release those since he was elected. host: ok, mark? caller: the lady bett said someone making $26,000 in the united states pays 28% of taxes, i don't believe anybody in the united states who makes $26,000 and is paying 28% in taxes. also, as far as warren buffett, this is just a comment on warren buffett -- berkshire hathaway

has owned mid-america which is a utility and they build nuclear power plants and want people to pay for it because midamerica -- host: as you probably know, warren buffett made the cover of time magazine this week. here is a tweet -- let's go to steve and next, a democrat from michigan. caller: good morning. why is he hiding his taxes? just put them out there if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to worry about. it is as simple as that. host: what about the issue of

privacy? if he does not become the nominee and put his tax records out and for the media to analyze, his privacy is gone. caller: privacy of what? what is he hiding? does he have something to hide? no big deal. if it is public information, and he is running for public office, come on, let's see what he has made and where his money lies. we are shipping all the job to china. where is he making his money? host: on the issue of running for office --

on the south carolina primary -- that is in "usa today." on the issue of endorsements and kingmakers in south carolina, here is a piece from "the wall street journal" --

the candidates are women -- we covered one of his town halls and you could go to our website, c-span.org, and check out our road to the white house page, our coverage of this town hall but many of the town halls that and taking place are the last few months and weeks. mr. scott remained unsettled on a candidate on monday. it goes on to say -- david, an independent, houston,

texas, we're talking about presidential candidates and whether they should release their tax records, go ahead started caller: the guy who called a little while ago need to have his own show because he made my day. he absolutely made sense with the politics of envy that has taken hold of the nation. host: will leave it there. this is "the tampa bay *" -- -- times --

tuscaloosa, alabama, a republican, what do you think about releasing tax records? caller: i don't really care what their taxes 104. they have a personal life and accomplishments that as their own business. i am interested in their morals and personal views. everybody wants to slink dirt and down the other person. why does nobody else tells what they will do for us? his taxes are his business. i don't know in my taxes. host: what about the arguments that the other callers have made that you should just released and if you have nothing to hide if you are running for public office? caller: i am funny about that. every addict as opinions on everything. -- everybody has opinions on everything. it is like a birthday, everybody

has one. these things will be found out. we need to let them do their job. they need to tell us what they stand for what they will do for us. i don't want to see how much dirt they can dig up on the other man. host: speaking of digging up dirt, that has been part of the debate for this gop primary about super-pacs and the ads that have been running as. "the financial times" has been talking about how much --

we will be talking about super- pacs tomorrow on [video clip] "washington journal." a piece was written that is called attack of the super-pacs. florida, go ahead caller: i would like to remind the people who vote in these primaries that mitt romney is the one who said on your show that corporate america is the people and they are the only people that count. i don't know if the taxes should be released but all the financials should be. that's all i have to say. host: a republican in scottsdale, ariz., go ahead

caller: i don't think it matters that much. i think what is more important is the candidate that represents that wellcome's of the earth, it does not come from money from one account to the other, building up debt and all that, it will be the candidate who can portray that and can said it is about jobs and bring in money up from the earth either through farming, mining, what ever it may be -- i think they forget that the candidates lose sight of that and i think they can take money from one account and go over to another and somehow that will create wealth. that is just moving it around. there is no other place where to welcome to come from accept the earth. host: will keep taking your thoughts and your comments and your opinions about last night's question about whether or not presidential candidates should release their tax records.

here is another moment from last night's gop debate in south carolina -- ron paul was asked about his comments he made about the navy seals raiding the osama bin laden compound and the impact of that. [video clip] >> if i voted for the authority, i think it was proper. once they waited 10 years, i don't see any reason why they could not have done that like they did after shake khalid mohammed. that would have been a more proper way. if a chinese dissident comes a bigger, we would not endorse the idea that they can come over here and bomb us. i am trying to suggest that respect for in another nation's sovereignty and look at the chaos and pakistan now. we are at war in pakistan. to say i did not want him killed

-- i am suggesting that there are processes that if you can follow them, you should do it. there are proper procedures rather than digging bigger goals for ourselves. host: that was ron paul last night at the debate, asked to explain what he has said about the compound and the rating of the compound and whether that violated international law. let me show you our facebook page -- if you wanted poster, and, go to facebook.com \ cspan. we will be covering the presidential candidates in south

carolina today newt gingrich has a town hall meeting at 1:30 p.m. today. it is the south carolina farmers market in west columbia, south carolina and rick perry will be live on c-span 3 this morning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time and he has a town hall meeting at one of the vfwposts in south carolina. go to a website, c-span.org, and the air campaign 2012 page their and our coverage of the presidential candidates ahead of saturday's south carolina president. an independent from washington, what do you think about this question this morning on tax records? caller: if we are going to get it to tax records, why don't we look into the federal reserve like ron paul says. let's ahead to that. there is no law on the books that says the internal revenue service has legal authority to collect taxes from us. making someone run for office

reveal their tax records, someone could formulate a birth certificate just like that. it is not very difficult i agree with what the guy said previously that this is a personal issue. what does it matter what you make? i guess there are two sides to it. where is the money coming from? are they sending jobs overseas? it go into wal-mart and they have over 100 items and 99 of them are from china. this tax record thing is not an issue. look at the history of the way the politicians have voted and the things that have passed. mitt romney socialized health care in massachusetts and that this -- and that is what this current administration is leaning toward. mitt romney is being groomed to be the next guy to replace whoever's in there now. is the same regime over and over again. it is not changing.

we're not getting somebody outside the norm because they don't want to break the circle. host: this is "the wisconsin state journal" -- here is another story -- some other headlines for you this morning mention the house returns today for its legislative session on a vote to

disapprove raising their debt ceiling, it is being called primarily a symbolic vote. that is "the baltimore sun." one of the first orders of business is to vote on whether to allow the administration additional borrowing authority. here is "news to paper --

barbara, a democrat in austin, texas, what do you think about tax records? caller: i have a cold so i hope you can understand me. i love comedy and one of the funniest things to make is to hear the republicans say this is personal. when he gets the general election, they will be all too happy to probe into birth certificates and obama's in come and it is a double standard. it never ends. it reminds me of how they were involved in every detail of clinton's sex life but no republican has ever done anything like that.

the hypocrisy is amazing. and so funny. host: this is the front page of " the new york times" -- that is a headline that read as -- that is in a lot of papers. next to that --

also, the front page of " the new york times" -- a few more issues for outside of our question but nathan is a republican in pennsylvania, we will get your take on presidential candidates releasing their tax records, go ahead caller: good morning, i

don't think they should be allowed to release their tax records unless it is a lot. law. they are forgetting the right to privacy of national candidates and their financial records. host: all right, columbus, ohio, a democrat, what do you think? caller: i totally disagree with the last caller. i believe they are running for public office, the highest office in the world actually, and this should be totally vetted. i believe the financial accounts and taxes should be vetted and i believe every aspect of their lives, needs to be. there's to be nothing hidden from the american public. host: ok, mich., an independent, you are next. caller: i believe that the tax

records should absolutely be made available. we are electing the commander in chief of the united states. that gives him the power to send men and women, american soldiers, into battle. we need to know everything we can about them. if you are a private citizen, that is great. have your privacy. but president of united states is not a private citizen. he is the commander in chief and i would never, ever vote for anyone who would not release everything whoever they received money from at all. host: what about the argument about waiting until he is the nominee? you say a president is not a private citizen. they are the commander in chief but mitt romney has said he will wait until the republicans have nominated me.

last night he said he would probably released in april but what about that argument? caller: what kind of argument is that? host: ok, and independent voters there. john hulsman drop out. and "the wall street journal" ways in --

and then "the washington times"has this story --

ohio, re a democratic caller, good morning -- caller: good morning, you look beautiful today. i have a couple of comments yes, all tax records should be released he is running for public office, not private office. everything should be available. secondly, i have a bone to spec -- to pick with c-span. i have watched you for years and it seems like lately 75-80% of your guest and programming have been about republicans. these republicans are always attacking president obama and other people. i would like to see a more balanced forum with more democrats talking about the issues, thank you. host: the new hampshire and iowa caucuses and the new hampshire primary was this story of late so we did try to get as many of the candidates for the gop primary and/or their surrogates

on the show while we were in iowa and new hampshire covering the campaign as it unfolds if you take our programming as a whole, our network as a whole, you will find it on balance for the most part. an independent in louisiana, go ahead caller: our you doing? it seems like it is playing to the paranoia of the american people. tech information is a very private thing. it does not make any sense to require to release anything. host: ok, why do you think it matters? caller: it has a lot to do with the credibility of a candidate. you don't want to elect a president that is corrupt or an awful individual like rupert murdoch. i think is -- i believe they

should release their animation when they are a nominee. when they are a candidate, it is a right to privacy. anyone can run but they should not be released -- required to release host: host: coming up, we will continue to look at the gop republican field at last night's gop presidential debate and the potential impact on the south carolina primary this weekend. bill kristol will join us next, we will be right back. ♪ ♪ >> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary, the cspan road to the white house

cover sticks to live to the candidate events all this week. >> need to eliminate these entitlement programs. we need to catch them, cut them, kept them, send them back to the states, remove the federal oversight, and let the states have the flexibility to deliver these programs. >> we have brought to the forefront, others have to openly talked about it and they get in office and do nothing about it but right now, it is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement, and individual liberty movement, that is saying to the country and the world that we have had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policeman of the world. it is a time to bring them home. >> the candidates get their message out, meeting voters.

>> we feel very good about that the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign and that will be good for us in south carolina but as we go forward. >> find more video at c- span.org/campaign 2012. >> a quick reminder -- the deadline is 7 for the pc spam studentcam competition. we're asking students which part of the constitution has meaning to you and wider there is a grand prize of $5,000.50000 dollars in total prize is. get your documentary to cspan. >> "washington journal:" continues. host: hardback with bill kristol to talk about the impact of the south carolina primary on saturday. let me show you "the post and

courier "page -- winners and losers from last night? guest: i think the american people and the american primary voters one last night. it was a good debate and they have been getting with the work -- been getting better with fewer voters -- with fewer debaters. last night there were five people on stage. they had a little bit longer to answer. and there were some good exchanges between the candidates. we will eventually get down to four candidates. people are now mocking the debates and they are tired of them. you do learn something from them and it is good for these candidates to go through this.

i would like to see some debates after south carolina before a florida that will likely have four candidates and would not be bad for the debates to go into march. you do learn new things and you see how the candidates respond and new issues,. there's no rush to nominate someone host: we can talk about south carolina and beyond. last night's debate, do you think it has an impact on saturday? guest: yes, i try to look at it as a fair minded person. ron paul has his own following. i think rick perry was clearly a mock -- marginal figure o. he has done badly in iowa and new hampshire and the polls. if you look at mitt romney and rick santorum and newt gingrich, the three leading candidates, i

thought they were evenly matched. if anything, i thought gingrich and santorum outperformed romney. the runyan supporters who say they want to end best -- the romney supporters who said it wants to end this, is in three states enough? i want to get it done and want to consolidate before february 1. i think that argument loses credibility gird. don't we trust of voters of other states? but the attempt to give romney the mantle of the inevitability took a hit last night. view think newt gingrich did? guest: he loves arguing and i think he did well. a good question was asked and newt gingrich did a good answer and that was the high point of the debate. i thought rick santorum was

strong as well. rick santorum defended a position during the debate talking about former felons having the votes. it is not a huge national issue. it was a vote he cast 10 years ago. it is probably not that popular a position. the reason it came up is that the romney super-pac attacked him on that. i think santorum was right to bring it up. it was unfair attack on him but he held his ground and defended the substantive position which shows the principle. it is not a popular position. mitt romney turned out to be a super hardliner on former felons. they should never have the votes? it is not a position that he ever argued for as governor of

massachusetts. massachusetts is much more liberal than the position rick santorum took. even in virginia which is a law and order state, former felons can petition the governor with the expectation of given the vote back if they vote but -- be it well on probation. and after. it was a revealing moment and i thought santorum was clever in the debate with rum maker romne. is that really the view of mitt romney? i can't believe he is such a super hard-liner. host: let me go back to former speaker newt gingrich. let's show our viewers the moment you are talking about in case they misted between the moderator and the speaker -- [video clip] >> use of some of this in your visit to a black church in south carolina where a woman as to why refer to president obama as the food stamp president reddit sounds as if you are speaking to

the little people. >> first of all, juan, the fact is that most people have been put on food stands by barack obama than any president in american history. [applause] i know among the politically correct, that is a fact that is uncomfortable. [laughter] [applause] second, you raised a key point earlier that the area that should be 573 should be called -- was called a quarter of shame. as it improves? they have not built the roads and not the people and have not done anything. [applause] host: just on his performance last night, here is an e-mail from a viewer --

guest: look, i myself am uncertain who i will vote for in the republican primary. i will not clear who will be on the ballot in virginia. i'm not really open on the wrong call issue. i don't agree with him on fundamental issues and i think rick perry will get out. gingrich is a fantastic debater but newt gingrich's approval rating in two big national polls lately is about 28 favorable-58 on favorable. ronald reagan never had numbers like that. you may love newt gingrich and i have worked with him for 25 years and i admire him and i like him.

i think he would probably be a pretty good president but to have to ask yourself -- can he do so well in the campaign that we overcome such a gap? let's look at the other numbers -- present obama is at +2 ann romney is a +4. rex santorum was less well-known is about eight -4. they are all within the range. those kinds of numbers change. can you overcome where newt gingrich is? i would have real doubts about whether gingrich could win. i think rick santorum, without all of the gingrich history, may

be less flashy debater but without all of his history, you could make the case that he would be a stronger general election campaigner. host: we're talking about last night's debate in the gop presidential field. the numbers are on your screen we also have a fourth line set aside for south carolina residents. we want to hear from you leading into saturday's primary. we have a republican, go ahead caller: i am concerned about how the guest is just dismissing ron paul. ron paul is very much against of theseol's agenda ongoing war startedmr. kristol is involved with the project for

the new american century which advocated the war and laid out a plan for the war on terror. that included iran and syria. i'm a veteran. one of my brothers did two tours in iraq. i am sick and tired of guys like vests -- if i am not mistaken, mr. kristol was born in 1953 and then made an 18 in 1971, two years before the draft was ended and he could have gone to pushing for war. i want to encourage all the listeners who can hear my voice to watch the documentary "the new american century." host: let's get a response guest: thank you for your service. i said i have a fundamental disagreement with ron paul on foreign policy. i could not vote for him personally and i think he is just wrong in his analysis. i

respect people who have served in war because it is a terrible things. ron paul voted to authorize the war on terror and voted to authorize the war in afghanistan and he now speaks as if it was a terrible mistake. it is unclear whether he is adjusting his view now. his true view is that we should not have gone to war at all and that we invited 9/11. he has hung out with an upraised 9/11e that 9/11 thi that think was an inside set up job. i have debated people on foreign policy i would be happy to debate ron paul and foreign policies. host: here is a cnn poll -- what do you make of that?

guest:guest: most of the voterst the incumbent president. i do think in the real race, when voters get to know the opponent better, and when they really have to make a final decision, it makes a decision. ronald reagan had been demonized by his republican primary opponents in 1980 and by the media. he was able to reassure the public that he was the right person for the job and indeed of a beating carter pretty handily. i think the economy will be weak and any republican could wind. i think electability matters. you cannot just take a snapshot poll now and say who seems to be doing better. that is why these debates are

interesting. they are debates and you get to see these guys handle themselves against challengers. president obama will be able to challenge them effectively and the general election. there'll be hundreds of millions of dollars of ads running against them. letting this go on so that we learn about the candidates is important. host: here is the "washington post" this morning with their poles. -- polls. 72% said mitt romney will win. guest: brawny is certainly the favorite. it shows that they are reading the newspapers and romney is tied in iowa and one new hampshire, and may well south -- and may well win south carolina. he has run before and republicans have a real history of nominating someone who has run before. bush in 1988 after he lost to

reagan in 1980. i came in 2008 after a loss to bush in 2000. -- became the intent thousand eight after he lost to bush in 2000 -- mccain in 2008 after he lost to bush in 2000. barack obama, a first term senator from illinois, beat hillary clinton. that is a model for our republican primary might go. it santorum wartell said gingrich anne romney, that would be analogous -- would upset gingrich and romney, that would be analogous. they generally nominate someone who has run before and has experience. it could be a good thing. you have run before and you learn how to do it. you introduce yourself to the voters earlier. it could be not a great thing,

like republicans did with bob dole, a fine man. really impressive careers. they did not make good general election candidates. host: an independent. good morning. caller: i like to thank you for c-span. you're about the only people who tell the truth. mr. bill is very good at distorting the facts. ron paul did excellent. he tore those guys up. he did stumble a little bit because they got four against one, but that is ok, we will still win. you said that it would be meeting certain places and you did not mention ron paul. i want to tell you where ron paul will be today. he is going to be in colombia, he is going to be there at 10:00 a.m., and in spartanburg on north church st., 2:00 p.m..

he will be at a holiday inn at 4:30 p.m. i like to add that all the other papers and the media do not want to cover ron paul. one paper in washington admitted that they had been wrong and it is on the computer if you want to look it up. host: go-ahead. guest: we cover him in the "weekly standard." some of his conspiracy theories and there is a public website composite -- they have posted links to a lot of the letters that ron paul wrote when he was out of office in the late 1980's and early 1990's. they went out under the ron paul newsletter. he spoke about them at that time many now says he did not really write them or even read all of them. he certainly took credit for them and made money off of them.

people should really read those. palisade that to this gentleman from conway. you may like some of the things that ron paul says but you should read these. really read up on what ron pollack said over the years. see if you're comfortable with someone who raises some any concerns and theories and place so fast and loose with the facts. and a fundamental view of america which is not what most americans are most conservatives believe. host: michael in oklahoma, democratic line, go ahead. caller: i like to comment on what ron paul said last night in the south carolina debate. ron paul, he has is issues like anyone else, but at the same time, ron paul sees things as cutting drive. they're going to be putting all the political words and and they do not know what they're talking about. at the same time, ron paul is right when he says we need to clean up our own backyard before calling someone else's.

with the military overseas, that is where all the money is going and, overseas. that's why we are in the mess that we iran. plus the housing market, that is another problem that got us in this mess. we did all of that and got that all in order, maybe we would be a better america that we are now. host: we will let that stand as a comment. gary in oklahoma, go ahead. caller: and bill kristol, it is my first time to even talk to you. a question concerning gary johnson, the former governor of new mexico. all news, an old junkyard dog. he just keeps hanging around and it's too close, he will snappier right on the mind. i am one of those people that became a libertarian in 1980. the reason was that i felt that the republican party had really

lost its way. i was one of those that really do believe in small government, efficient government, i felt that the drug war and i still feel the drug war is so unconstitutional. it has ruined this country. it has proved the old concept about power corrupting. host: what is your comment or question for bill kristol? caller: concerning gary johnson, he talked the talk and walk the walk in the republican voters did not follow up on him. just left him in the dirt. i do not understand it. he actually adhered and govern in so-called republican principles. guest: gary johnson was the governor of new mexico and i'm not an expert on how successful he was our was not. if iran is a very strong libertarian. -- he ran as a very strong

libertarian. ron paul had more the face and was able to edge him out. i think he is a principal libertarian and i do not agree with him either, but he manages to articulate a libertarian view without the conspiracy maundering and without the imputing of bad motives to rivals, which ron paul does. he just says that we want a fight and was wars. does he really believe that? does he think mitt romney and rick santorum get up and think, hey, let's send young men off to fight a difficult wars overseas, wouldn't it be great? he will not debate them, actually. ron paul talks about wanting to debate but he does not abate. i have never seen him engage in serious debate. i would be happy to debate him one-on-one on foreign-policy and others would, too. but he likes speaking to his own

followers. he has built up a big network of its ears. a lot of people vote with him out of frustration with the system and he is telling it like it is. but honestly it is unfortunate. i do not believe he will get the nomination. he is getting a lot of publicity but people should look at his record and what he has said in a fast -- in the past and think seriously about if he is the kind of person they want leading this country. host: this headline of the "new york times" this morning. some conservatives backed away from santorum. their meeting over the weekend, coming out of it saying, we are all coalescing around rex santorum and now it is coming out a couple of days later, no, no, no, if we think the ballot box of stuff over the weekend. guest: i do not believe that. i talk to people that were there of the weekend and there was no stopping of the ballot box. one person on ron paul pyrrole

is saying that there was ballot box stuffing as that these people, these pastors and political leaders, that they are going to go along with this dishonest, men and women. i do not buy that for a second. there were a lot of newt gingrich supporters and rick santorum supporters there. i think it is fair to say, they're not telling anyone how above. they are reporting that there were more voters and supporters for rick santorum than newt gingrich. they had agreed to try to come to -- to coalesce around one candidate. and in the end, more than two- thirds of voted for it santorum. -- of them voted for santorum. to say that there was a ballot box stuffing is an attack on the integrity of these men and women and it is unjustified. host: so is rich selling for on the 2 q anyone but ronnie"

candidate? guest: no, because newt gingrich remains formidable. i think that they will stay in the race and i'm not desperate to get one of them out. romney may be better than both of them, but i do not think it hurts them to stay in. conservatives are panicking -- the establishment is succeeding in panicking conservatives. fine, let's split the vote. let's say in south carolina mitt romney is 35% and newt gingrich is 25% and rick santorum is will get 20%. host: 25 delegates at stake. guest: paul will get a few and then they go on to the next contest and florida. at some point, it passed a narrow down. once april 1 in the winner-take- all states, then being first with a plurality starts to matter.

running first is better than running second or third. i do not think it is really proper or i do not feel that i won the pressure either one of them to get our or to say that race would be over one gets out. that is not -- that is saying voters in a letter shapes our sheep. let them make up their minds. but the voters in south carolina make up their mind. i think last night's debate was interesting. you would of thought after 16 debates you know everything about the candidates. but especially with your people on the stage, you learn things. host: an e-mail. guest: that was odd. i ask questions about different things, the betting capital, but over the course of the debates

you have seen their approaches on economic policies. they do not differ that much, it is fair say -- fair to say. maybe in that respect, he is the riskier candida denominated you do not think the american public is willing to say a santorum said last night that millionaires getting social security maybe should not get their full social security payment has someone living off of it as their primary source of income. i think we're seeing the differences. you get a little -- a lot of different issues and you do not get perhaps the sustained discussion on one topic that some people might want, but they can go to the websites and see that as well. host: from austin, texas. caller: during the debate, when mr. brown asked a question about mitt romney's father, he was booed.

mitt romney grandfather in 1935 fled this country with his five wives to move to mexico, and basically denounced the country. mitt romney's father was born in mexico. i remember obama was running, it was all this stuff going on about his being a birther and stuff like that. it seems to me that of romney's have a more questionable background. is he a citizen or not? host: before we get the answer, where did you read that information's? caller: i heard it on the right to maddow show. guest: i think barack obama is a citizen and mitt romney is a citizen. you're not responsible for which your grandparents are great grandparents did, obviously. i think it is a non-issue,

frankly. host: lisa, an independent, you're next. caller: my comment was about the tax disclosure. i believe that the 20% of unemployed people in this country who have to allow a potential employer to look at their credit report is just as wrong as the people who think that is an invasion of romney's privacy to disclose his taxes. host: we ask that of our viewers in the first 45 minutes. guest: in the custom, 76 candidates have disclosed their most recent tax forms at least. i think it is reasonable, and now people expected. they do not have to do it. the reason mitt romney said that he would do it in april, because that is when john mccain did it

in 2008, mitt romney more than most candidates is running on his private sector record. it makes a little more sense for people say, let's find out more about the record. private equity and venture- capital firms are more secretive. it does not do them any good to have a huge amount of publicity. they provide opprobrious closer to their clients, but not to the whole world. -- appropriate disclosure to their clients, but not the whole war. you obviously made a lot of money but we need to see a little bit about what you did s ceo of that firm. ceo of that firm. he should do it during the primary process. i doubt that there is anything damning in them, but it would be nice to know now, not in april or may or june when the as some

of the republican nomination. host: does it matter how much tax he paid or how he paid? guest: it matters a little bit. if he took advantage of perfectly straight for ways of various laws, that carried interest provision would have allowed him to claim capital gains. host: which is capped at 15%. guest: since it was reduced below regular income in 1997. that is the case, i will not criticize him for that. he paid what he was supposed to pay. but people have to look at it and see what they want to make. host: to the republican line, bernie in brooklyn. caller: putting aside afghanistan for the moment, what is the current political rationale for keeping troops in korea and in europe? how do you feel about it?

guest: there has not been a war in korea it for 60 years and longer than that in europe. except for the balkans. we do not have any troops there. it does not cost as much money. no more money than keeping them in the u.s. and if we have to deploy troops as we will have to do again, it is helpful to have bases in europe from which to deploy in germany, which is closer to afghanistan than we are. it is helpful to have the ability in korea to deter the north koreans and to deter china from doing adventuresome things. i think ron paul goes on on how much it cost have these troops over the world. it does not cost very much. unless you do not want to have the troops at all. it sounds like he wants to bring the troops back home and at other times it sounds like he wants to cut the military as a whole by an awful lot because we should not ever intervene anywhere. that is a fair debate that have,

but i do not personally believe that that is a good recipe for a safe world or united states of america. host: bua tweet. guest: that was an exciting experiment with sarah palin. it did not hurt mccain at the end of the day. he lost by what he was going to lose by any way. except for the two weeks when he went ahead. whether they handled it well or handled as well she might have, in los questions and endless debate. everyone seems to think that marco rubio would be a leading pig. i think that. i'm very impressed with him. there might be worries of picking someone new. he is only in his first term. it could be deterred by the example of sarah palin, a first term governor. you might pick someone like

mitch daniels. i would tend to go young. i think against president, -- president obama, in a new era, i think marco rubio and paul ryan are the two stars in congress. among younger people, you want to double down on a sober, a senior statesman, mitch daniels, the very successful two-term governor for indiana. i wish he had run for president. i wish they all had run and it would've been strong candidates. but i can see it romney were to win the nomination, deciding, they will attack you for being boring and not as young and the new generation, so i'll take mitch daniels and say, we know we're doing. we have experience. we are sober and sound. i could see him what daniels and rubio and paul ryan or someone else. host: a caller from massachusetts.

caller: thank you for having me. it is interesting, i was watching the debates last night, and the fact is that i saw twitter overwhelmingly in paul's camp, whereas the other candidates did not fare very well. my question to mr. kristol, the difference between the debates and the public on what paul could be so far out in front of the other candidates and it is interesting that romney in the rest are being pumped as william randolph hearst would talk about. and the other issue i like to ask you about, i see you go to the conspiracy theory in the things which mitigate the impact of what mr. paul says in terms of foreign policy and domestic issues. could you give me an example of a conspiracy theory that he thinks is viable which the other candidates will not stand for? guest: i am not exert what the

last question is. i think he has a fondness for conspiracy theories, a small cabal that got us into these wars. he has been on radio shows up to this past year of a man named alec zone, a leading 9/11 conspiracy theorist. he has praised him elsewhere. i think that is justified. people can look at all of his letters and what he has said over the years and the five -- decide whether he is a sober judge or if he has a tendency for conspiracy theories. i do not think any of the other candidates do. i do not know why people on twitter are more pro-paul than not. host: i think referring to the polls, too, the disconnect. guest: paul has done pretty well. he got 21% of the vote in iowa and about that in new hampshire. it certainly get his message out to the voters. he has raised a lot of money and

has a lot of adds up, in his own name and the super pac, again santorum in particular heavy seas as a threat. paul is doing pretty well for someone like him who i would say has views, if you're really dig down on them, that are pretty far removed from the mainstream of american conservative thinking. he is a big critic of ronald reagan's. most american conservatives think that was a good presidency. he was dismissive of all the efforts in 1994 and the republican revolution. all these other efforts to try to limit government without doing away with everything that has been done over the last century. he is a pretty big critic of almost everything done by government in the last entry. some people agree with that. i do not. host: let me go to congress and so this headline from the "washington post." and then this week from rick.

-- tweet from rick. guest: mr. obama has done a good job of making it seem like it was controlled by the republicans. in the real world of governance, the house is done all right. but in terms of the politics, i am worried that they have sort of made themselves a pretty good punching bag for president obama. some of it is unfair. life is unfair and you have to think about how to deal with it. i think the next year could be interesting on a hill. general consensus is the previous hour, from one of the magazines, i am not so sure that that is true. often people think nothing is going happen. often things happen when people think nothing is one happen, and vice versa.

i can imagine speaker boehner and present are a, cutting deals, for example. i -- and president obama cutting deals for example. about our military and domestic spending, i think the whole congressional front will be interesting. we look at these presidential races and the jockeying in the debates. the real events happen in the real world. one of them in the previous hour, europe -- what will happen with the european meltdown and how much will that affect the u.s. economy? while happy with iran? and what happens in congress? that could affect the general image of the president, of the republican party, and could affect the presidential race. host: let me get your reaction to what john huntsman said they say yesterday at his news conference announcing that he is no longer in this presidential race. "financial times," let's listen to what he said on that issue. [video clip]

>> at its core the republican party is a party of ideas. but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause. and it is just one of the many reasons why the american people have lost trust and their elected leaders. today i colony campaign to cease attacking each other -- i call on each campaign to cease attacking each other and talk to the american people about how our conservative ideas will create jobs, reduce our nation's debt, stabilize energy prices, and provide a brighter future for our children and our grandchildren. host: is a realistic request? guest: it is a request to should have followed with iran. he did not i exactly test the proposition. -- he did not exactly test the

proposition. they were clever videos mocking romney and attacking other candidates as well, making fun of republicans for that matter. i am not a big fan of candid it's getting out of the race in deciding, though, the whole system is flawed. and then telling the other candidates what to do. i think the contrast is useful. the back-and-forth of the debate last night was as revealing on a bunch of issues as each candidate standing up and giving a 30-minute speech on his position to the country. host: john, our republican in atlantic, your next. caller: first off, but somebody needs to get ron paul copy -- a copy of a certain book. it would be a wake-up call. it should be a retired reading -- required reading for every politician. iran has committed numerous acts of war against us, killing our

troops, in afghanistan and iraq, and on and on. in my mind, i think they have committed the same things that osama bin laden did. when it comes to the economy, bill, and do you not think that that most of the american people, i've heard polls support raising taxes in this economy? on a certain segment of our population. mostly the job creators. isn't that testament not only to the ignorance of a large part of our population but the failure of us in the media and conservatives and leaders to empower people with knowledge of history? for instance, newt gingrich touched on this in several debates. in september, and the third year of reagan's first term, we created over 1 million jobs.

host: i will leave that that because we're running out of time. guest: i agree that we should not raise taxes. and republicans have not done a good job of explaining why that would damage job creation. they said the the top rate under bill clinton was 39% and he created jobs. bush did not turn out so great. so it is not great, you do not have to be a socialist or particular left wing to think that maybe a couple of points on the marginal rate would not be a disaster. i should not be same as. my friends are having heart attacks. -- i should not be saying this. my friends are having heart attacks. whether it -- whether we have a burdensome regulatory structure and tax code of particular is a good idea, i think conservatives have done a good job in the debate over the last 30 years but not as good a job as they should have done.

when you get a financial meltdown like we get in -- what we got in 2007, you have to think that people -- and that happens with the republican president, let's face it. people and i cannot automatically believe the republican ideas. one final thing about ron paul. since we're so interested in him and i have to go in a minute. i am not going to apologize at all. a lot of people when they criticize ron paul have to preface their criticism by saying, he brings a lot to the debate. i do not believe that. i think it would be better for the republican party, and i've thought about the sun, if he left the republican party. a lot of republicans think about how to keep ron paul and the tent and does not the third party. host: including his fellow candidates. guest: he gave a speech in a convention that did not help the

president's reelection run. he left the party in 1999 and a lot of people including the said goodbye and good riddance. go run as the reform party candidate. he did not get many votes and i think george bush was helped from being freed from the extreme isolationism and anti- israel views and like very ron paul is a little different from all the can and cannot too much better. even in the short run. host: even in the election. it would hurt president obama? guest: i do not know, but i would feel more comfortable as a republican saying that of ron paul -- ron paul can do what he wants. if he wants to support whoever the republican nominee is, people can do that. but i don't think anyone should plead him not to run our stay in the party.

i would be comfortable in a general election if mitt romney or newt gingrich or rick santorum were debating both barack obama and ron paul. again a couple more phone calls. rick in tennessee, the quick. caller: 1994, they work for nafta. it s cost millions of jobs. -- it has cost this country millions of jobs. it is not too hard for companies to take the profit in move jobs overseas. thank you. guest: i supported nafta and i did today. i do not believe that we lost jobs to canada. some companies did move jobs to mexico but the trade has been the benefit. i support nafta and i have no apologies for it. host: richard in michigan.

caller: mr. kristol and america, stop lying about ron paul. there is a revolution going on in this country for this is restoring individual liberty. talk about the issues, for crying out loud. if he wants to in the federal reserve and give a sound money. he wants to and the undeclared an unconstitutional wars. guest: did he say that he voted for one of those wars? caller: no. @ listen to me. he voted for the authority to get bin laden. that was not the authority to go into all right. and do not demagogue the issue. we are talking about personal freedom and liberty. you neocons are done. go away. america does not want you anyway. fox news' allies. your propaganda is a disgrace to the republic. give us a break. guest: i think this is a country of liberty and we do not need

ron paul to bring us back our liberty. i have been a critic of the federal reserve and i am moderately pro-gold standard so i do not rule out every radical change in economic policy. i'm happy to debate foreign policy with ron paul and patrick gannon and people who agree with them. the notion that somehow, fine, ron paul can lead a revolution. i am not interested in a revolution. i am interested in restoring limited constitutional government in a sensible way and also interested in preserving the good things that government does and preserving a strong u.s. role in the world. i'm interested in stopping iran from getting nuclear weapons. which ron paul seems to think is not important. if ron paul thinks it would be good for individual liberties with a nuclear iran and a nuclear race in the middle east, that it would be easier to preserve freedom. home for children and grandchildren, he is welcome to

that view. i do not agree with that. host: thank you for talking to our viewers. coming up, we will turn our attention to the aclu fight against voter id laws. double, next after this update from c-span radio. we will be right back. host: of the day after the gop debate in south carolina, newt gingrich tell cbs this morning that the republican party will need a first great debater since president obama because he has ample money and the trappings of the presidency. adding that he thinks his performance in the debate shows he is the best qualified to take on president obama in the fall. he went on to say that votes for rick perry or rick santorum would be wasted. neither had a chance to block it from these path to the nomination. meanwhile, south carolina state senator larry grooms, an early supporter of repairing, has called on the texas governor to abandon his white house aspirations, saying, i was there

when gov. perry made his announcement in charleston and had a tremendously high hopes for every presidency. he went on to say that campaigns are tough and early mistakes and missed mistakes have taken their toll and now's the time to get out. congress returns today after a three-week holiday way, this is protesters is affiliated with the occupy wall street movement or meeting outside the capitol where participants hope will become the largest gathering of occupy activists formed around a country they say the plan to probe -- to deprive the influence of corporate money in politics and a show of the representatives what real democracy looks like. those are some of lettuce headlines on c-span radio. -- of the latest headlines on c- span radio. >> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary, c-span's "road to the white house" coverage take you live to the candidate events this week. >> we need to eliminate these means-tested entitlement programs. we need to cap them and send them back to the states, remove the federal oversight and let the states have the flexibility to deliver these programs.

>> we have brought to the forefront -- others have talked about it and they get in office and do nothing about it, but right now it is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement, an individual liberty movement that says to the country and to the word, we have had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policeman of the world. it is time to bring them home. >> and as candidates get their message out meeting voters -- >> [unintelligible] >> thank you, thank you. >> you have my vote >> thank you so much. >> we feel like the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign and that will be good for us not just in south carolina but as we go forward. >> find more video from the campaign trail at c-span.org/campaign2012.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: laura murphy is the director of the american civil unit to in a -- civil liberties union's washington legislative office. why are voter id laws wrong? guest: the states that enacted them have not been able to prove that voter fraud, the rationale for voter id laws, is a problem. the bush justice apartment from 2005-2009 made voting fraud a priority. at 300 million votes cast during that period, the only account 86 incidents. south carolina and enacted a voter id law. was not a single piece of evidence put in the play that voting fraud was a problem in south carolina. and the effect of these voter

id laws is disenfranchising millions of americans. a 11% of adults and it is estimated to not have a form of voter id. this will impact the elderly, many who let their driver's license and government ids idea -- expired. students move around a lot. a lot of registration apartments have closed down so you have to travel longer distances. it is hard for the disabled and elderly to wait in long lines. and minorities, it is estimated that 25% of african-americans do not have voter id. host: image and south carolina. as one of six republican states that tauten their laws to require a total id. it was part of last night's debate. here is what texas governor rick perry had to say about the issue.

[video clip] >> i am saying also that south carolina is at war with this federal government and with this administration. [applause] when you look at -- what this justice the bar and has done, not only have they taken to task on voter id, they've also taken the task on immigration laws and the most egregious thing is this national labor relations board where they come into a right to work state and tell the state of south carolina if we are not going to let a private company come in here. that is irresponsible. i would suggest to you that it is unconstitutional. all spain laura murphy, the issue -- host: laura murphy, the issue of the state. guest: i think it is ridiculous.

the voting rights law, poll taxes were being implemented, discouraging people, especially people of color from voting, the voting rights act has been renewed as recently as 2006 by a huge bipartisan margins. when the justice department looks at a state like south carolina, they are obligated to do that by the voting rights act which was passed and re-enacted in 2006. huge republicans champions, signed into law by president bush. the idea that this justice department is picking on south carolina and other states that pass these repressive voting measures is ridiculous. this research and of states' rights is interesting. we have made constitution and the right to vote is referenced so many times in our constitutional bill of rights. it is implicit in the first amendment, the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment, the 26th

amendment -- six amendments to the constitution reenforce the right to vote, whether for women, for 18 year olds, the elimination of the poll tax, and so we have a long history of people trying to take away the right to vote from groups of people whom they think do not support their political views. host: you mention the 14th and 15th amendments. guest: they were passed to give the right of equality to former slaves, because the states refused to recognize that former slaves had the same rights as everyone else to vote. but that was not enough. even after those amendments were enacted, it took decades to enact the voting rights act of 1965, and it took riots and bloodshed, the march in selma,

the historic rate -- the historic march over the edmund patdown bridge, it really propelled congress and lyndon johnson to push for the enactment of the voting rights act. host: on map of voting rights laws across the united states. before 2011, only georgia and indiana required photo ids. many enacted laws to require more rigorous proof of identity. most will be in effect for the 2012 election, though some required justice department approval. the green states are the strict standards. the yellow states, but go with an exception, they can vote if they meet certain criteria such as signing affidavits attesting to their identities. and the blue states are non-. >> id states. they must show some form of idea

but a photo is not required. the states with the red at -- is there some compromiser? guest: as a condition of voting, there is a cost socially with getting not just the id itself, but also the background materials, a birth certificate costing anywhere up to $28, getting a u.s. passport in costs over $100. in essence, it is like a poll tax. it requires people to pay for something in order to have something that they are entitled to do as u.s. citizens entitled to the right to vote.

we're not against them per say, but used in the voting context, proving to be discriminatory and they are expensive. in this era of fiscal austerity, states are closing down dmv offices and what the supreme court has said that in those states that require a photo id for voting, if people can prove that they are indigent or poor, the state must give them a photo id, but the state is not required to pay for the birth certificate leading to the id, or the passport, so the supporting documents are a cost, even if the state gives you a free photo id. it is a fiction that somehow it is all free. plus hourly wage workers have to stand in long lines, and the dmv's are closing around the country. we recently met a couple from

tennessee, the campbell family, this man had an id, but it was not -- after 65, in tennessee do not have the photograph. now tennessee has passed a photo id law. it took him four or five efforts to convince the dmv that he was entitled to a free photo id. we're seeing that many people who work at these agencies do not understand the new law and are not getting proper training. host: this tweet. guest: my deceased mother decided to stop driving when she was 73 she ran for public office three times. she lived for 15 years and voted for 15 years with no problem. had she been alive today and

required to go to the dmv, we would have had to drive, stand in line, find her birth certificate, find her marriage certificate because women have a special hardship if they change their name, they also have to provide a birth certificate and a marriage certificate, and get her to the polls. everyone assumes that everyone is middle-class and we do all of these things. they do not think about the senior citizens. they do not think about the disabled. they do not think about the students moving around. you can board a plane with some type of government-issued id, sometimes the state student i.d., you can get on a plane. but to vote, there should not be so many inhibiting factors. especially when there is no demonstration that fraud is a pervasive problem. host: benjamin as first, a democrat in california. you are on the air with laura murphy of the aclu.

caller: if they require the idea, i always wanted to see the fourth branch of government recognized as a voting body of voters. i do not think they should be able to change the laws governing voting. it should be decided by the voters. also, i was wondering, if they are having us the the id card, maybe they should have watched some how, using technology. so when i vote on a digital voting thing and i've signed in, it will not let me sign and anywhere else. guest: the first issue is when you mail in your voting. generally for male in voting, the first time you show up at the polls, you do have to present a photo id of some kind. male in voting understandably, thousands of people could mail in false voting registration, but we have not seen as a

problem in the state. we've seen people confused, we have seen people move and forget to update their voter registration material, but we and not seen the problem with mail-in voting. some states have excluded mail- in voting from some of these restrictions and it does not make sense. there are new technologies being developed that can make it easier to identify voters, but there is also concern about national data bases that could be used for one purpose -- started for one purpose and used for other purposes. we have to balance privacy concerns with our civil liberties and our right to vote. it is not so easy just saying, have a identifier and that will solve the problem. that may create more problems

than it solves. host: jody on twitter ask about that. guest: it is not a problem. we do not have to go with the virus scanner the more invasive technologies. -- iris scans or more invasive technology. some of the databases, and just look at the social security number. oftentimes the social security number requested when it has no relationship to anything that you need to transaction for. social security was started as a means of identifying people that receive retirement benefits, and it has moved in moved. we are a little concerned about these databases.

host: this is the daily call or a piece written recently their records show that there are 900 dead people who may have voted. how you deal with that if you do not have some sort of photo id requirement? guest: they need to clean up their voter registration lists. it gives south carolina to clean up their voter lists so that the dead people can be purged. so many states have failed to comply with the laws. that is incumbent upon the state to eliminate those names from their data bases, so that people are not voting. but there is not proof that. they have asserted it but they have not proven that. host: chris and brooklyn, your up next. caller: thank you for taking my call. miss murphy, i think you are ignoring a few kings. i appreciate that our people out

there that do not have all lot of social connections, but we have a vast social network averages out to the elderly and others. photo id is pretty it ubiquitous so it is a canard that you bring up that there's a way that they will not get their voting service. you're setting up a class warfare and group war there and you referred to that. i am white heterosexual men. if i go into an equal of deployment opportunity office, they will not take my resume. would you take my case? i am being discriminated against. it will not even take my resume. thank you. guest: we are representing white males who are finding that they are having problems getting the documentation to vote. we have clients in missouri and wisconsin who are not your

typical profile, but maybe because their students or they have moved recently, and maybe because they have lost their jobs and happened to be low- income, they are having difficulty, or they are disabled, they are having difficulty getting photo id. i do not think it is a canard by any stretch of the imagination. host: what is the aclu effort to push back against the photo id laws when you look to the states that have them, green being the strictest standard, and yellow with exceptions. what are you doing in the states? guest: how much time do you have? we have 53 affiliate's greatly involved in the state initiatives, and state legislative efforts, to restrict the right to vote, opposing them, organizing them, traveling up and down the state, making sure people are aware that votes are coming up, like the mississippi initiative to

require voter id recently enacted. we are very active in ohio, in maine, in avoiding the state law that eliminated same-day registration, we are bringing lawsuits in georgia, the first organization to challenge voter id laws in georgia and indiana, and we are asking the justice department to bring enforcement actions in states covered by section 5 of the voting rights act, since 16 states are parts of states are covered and have to get their voting changes pre- cleared, so we have been meeting with the justice department. we have met with the attorney general. we're also in the process of putting out a fact sheet to know you're voting rights. know your voting rights, it means state-by-state analysis, that let you know which states require photo id, which have

eliminated same date brodeur registration, which states have eliminated a third party registration, and one of the interesting things is like in florida. they have instituted -- they did institute third party registration restrictions, which means that the league of women voters that have been registering voters for 70 years in florida will no longer registered voters in florida because the penalties are so extreme and the requirements are so extreme, you can get criminal penalties, fine, if you do not turn over the people that you register within 48 hours, which is difficult when you have people coming in and registering voters. there are onerous requirements and florida. host: how much money is the aclu spending on this effort? guest: i do not know that we have quantified it. my office has been working with the justice department and

producing materials and testifying before congress. we have the center for quality that is based in new york, and they had -- for equality that is based in new york, and they have organized information for voters. and then we have the voting rights project in atlanta, which has the largest number of voting rights legislation -- litigation of any voting rights organization. we use every resource at our disposal at the state and federal level. host: we will get to iraq -- rick and massachusetts, but i want to show this headline. go ahead, rick. caller: good morning in thank you for c-span. it is a great show, and a great and former of the american public. for your guests from the aclu,

she's been throwing numbers like 25% this and 10% debt. where is that automation to back that up? and both my wife and i are disabled. we found no difficulty in obtaining photo id, and another thing about the aclu, we attempted to contact them about a decade ago about a gross discrimination here in our town. we were told by the local representative of the aclu that it was not important enough and it would not garner enough publicity. can she answer that for me? guest: i did not know about your particular situation but there have been several studies about the numbers of people who are disenfranchised by photo id laws and voter suppression tactics like getting rid of same-day voting, early voting, making those things more difficult. the brennan center has put out an excellent report, one report on photo id and another on more

generic report on voter suppression. the aclu has issued a report, and those reports are based on data collected by universities, by the government, and so these are highly documented, research reports. i would urge you to go online and look at the aclu website, look at the brennan center web site, but that it lawyers for civil rights website, and goes to the department of justice and see why they have not precluded some of these butter suppression laws. there is ample documentation for the claims i am making. host: you're probably familiar with a column written on october 70 by a former congressman, democratic congressman davis, when he was the congress, he took the path of least resistance on the subject for an african-american politician.

guest: i did not seen any evidence when i read that article. i cannot vouch for his claims. he has a right to his opinion, but i do not think his assertions were backed by fact. host: culbertson, new york, bruce, a republican. are you there? we lost them. bobbie, a democrat in jackson, mississippi. caller: ms. murphy, thank you. i am proud that you are pushing this effort, your position. i had been involved in primary

elections for nearly 25 years. and there is no voter fraud. it is just a sham for voter for suppression, and at least in some of the states and the one that ayman, that it applies to, i hope you can push it and i hope it can be defeated like it should be. thank you. guest: there is someone that is involved in trying to combat the recently passed measure that would require voter id. that has to be pre-cleared by the justice department and not allow the voter id requirement to go into effect. it is well documented in mississippi how there have been practices to suppress turnout

in african-american districts and put them in places that are far away from the committees that they are supposed to serve. things like that are going on in mississippi. contact the justice department and asked them to look into that. host: we have a break down along the numbers. host: we have a tweet from t.j. guest: i am saying that the justice department made voter fraud in 2005 a huge priority and from 2005 until 2009, the

justice department investigated states across the country and they were only able to find 86 cases of voter fraud after 3 million votes. theret have a need to say isn't a problem, but there just is not a problem with voter fraud in america. every state has the ability to prosecute voter fraud. if there is a problem -- somebody was convicted in maryland threw rowboat calls -- robo calls. that kind of fraud is illegal. that we need additional requirements is a solution in search of a problem and a costly solution. these poll workers are often

volunteers and they do not have as much training as tsa agents in checking id. host: mark in florida. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you claim the aclu wants to protect the citizens of the united states. how do you prove when they are citizens? how many lawsuits did the aclu go after with voter fraud? god bless america. guest: the state has to get some kind of documentation from the citizen in order to register that citizen to vote. the question isn't whether there needs to be any documentation. we do not want non-citizens

voting. when you go down to the registrar, you have to show utility bill or a birth certificate or something. to make you show a photo id is more complicated than it appears. i does have to show two forms of documentation to prove i was a resident of the district of columbia. i showed my electric bill and i showed my passport. but not everybody has a passport. i registered before i changed my driver's license because a registered upon moving to the district of columbia. so i had a house and a utility built by did not have a driver's license in that jurisdiction

yet. college students have the right to vote but have not changed all of their id to produce a photo id in that particular jurisdiction. they may have a photo id in iowa when they go to school in wisconsin. host: we have a tweet from gary. let's hear from janet in west virginia, a republican. caller: i cannot say what she would say you do not need a voter id. it is just ridiculous. we have so many people coming in here with identification from dead people and everything else.

you have plenty of time to go get a photo id. i think it is ridiculous. guest: if you are an hourly wage worker, you have to pick up your kids after work. you have to make sure you put food on the table. you are often trapped between working two or three jobs. some people have plenty of time to register in advance. we want to deny the growing rate of poverty. just because people do not have time does not mean they are not interested in exercising their right to vote. so we go all over the world, the middle east, africa, and we encourage people to facilitate voting, especially in the arab spring countries. in our own country, we have been

electing -- erecting barriers. if there were based on a factual basis, that would be a different story. host: we have a question on twitter. guest: no. many states are not waiving fees. they may waive the photo id itself, which could cost $25 just to get the photo id. they are not waiving the feet for the documents. -- they are not waiving the fee. the birth certificate is a cost to have that mailed to you.

or if you lost your id, your purse was stolen, you have to pay for all of the supporting documentation. if you cannot find your marriage certificate -- if your name was changed. there was a woman in tennessee who could not vote. she had her birth certificate. she had her utility bills. but she did not have her marriage certificate that showed her married name and therefore she could not vote. caller: ithank you. the real fraught are these mandated voting machines that are controlled by the republicans -- the real fraud.

patches are slipped in on those machines and the flip the vote. 2.8 million votes were never even counted. the fraud of not counting the votes versus the 1% of voter fraud. guest: i think the caller makes an excellent point. we need to make sure there is efficacy and that resources are allocated so that ballots are checked and double checks. host: carroll is a democrat in illinois. caller: i live in a republican area. when we go to the polls, we have to sign a book. there is a copy of the original

signature when we first went to vote. i did work as an election poll worker and we use that information when people came up to vote. if the signature was different, we talked about whether this was the person. i don't think there's that much fraud. more people are being disenfranchised by trying to put these laws and. people say it is important to have a photo id, to go on a plane. not everybody goes on a plane. guest: i agree with your comment. i had to shore up and sign one i

voted in maryland and the district of columbia -- i have to show up. some people have strokes and their signatures to change. many states where people don't have their voter registration card -- it is not a photo id. they will make you sign an affidavit saying under penalty of perjury, it can be a state violation and you can be prosecuted if you misrepresent who you are. only get to it in person fraud. you walk up to eight voting place and say you're jane smith when you are jane doe.

that is such a rare occurrence as compared to things like the rowboat calls -- robo calls in maryland. other things are being prosecuted. the idea that somebody misrepresent themselves at a voting booth, even states that passed of voter law cannot prove this is a problem because it is n't. caller: can i just state these facts that were put out by our state senator? they found 37,000 to 95 registered voters that are dead but continued to be listed as active voters. 937 dead people actually voted.

334 active voters are registered at the same residence. one-person is listed as being over 130 years old. warm person was convicted on 14 counts of voter fraud -- one person. voter intimidation and voter fraud. we need voter id in the state. guest: i think the problem is with the florida system of voting itself. they do not purge -- host: south carolina. guest: they do not purge the roles as required under the act.

they are supposed to keep updated voter rolls. the government has a list of people that are dead. the aclu in south carolina has asked for supporting evidence. we are filing comments with the justice department. we think those are false allegations. host: a caller from georgia. caller: good morning. i think the aclu is yet again in the different states going to stir up trouble within people. i have a mother who has had no problems getting her voter id. nobody in georgia has either. i think even after our voter id law had come into affect, there

were more minorities that voted, not less. guest: i think that last point is correct. but it is burdensome for low- income people, for many elderly people. not as many elderly people are as lucky as your mom. there are not daughters like you who facilitate her voting and a lot of people have transportation challenges. the economy is facing a downturn. in terms of the aclu, we do not go looking for trouble. we're devoted for upholding the bill of rights and the constitution. there are six amendments to the constitution that support the right to vote.

it is the most heavily supported right in the bill of rights. we need to understand there is a national imperative to empower people to vote. these empowerment -- requirements did not pop up until 2006. why did we have these laws before 2006 and we did not have a photo id? and now there is an effort, the copycat bills being pushed into state legislatures across the country and the design of these bills is to suppress the right to certain voters. we have not seen anything like that in recent history. caller: how are you? i am enjoying this program.

this lost looks suspicious -- this law looks suspicious to the united states and to the world. the united states has had a history of voter suppression. for this new law to come about, this looks bad for our country. i hope you continue to fight this. host: last comment. guest: the aclu is proud to be championing the right of voters across america regardless of race, class, disability, gender. we will continue this effort. we're putting resources into this effort to preserve voting right and to stop voter suppression tactics that we think are not necessary and are not based on sound evidence.

look for to educating the american people about their rights. -- we look forward to educating the american people about their rights. host: we have a news update from c-span radio. >> the obama administration is developing the first national alzheimer's plan to treat and to prevent the mind-destroying illness by the year 2025. president obama is set to visit orlando and he says this is tied to boosting the economy. the administration's efforts to reduce wait times for visas in countries like china will mark a turning point for the travel industry which has worked to put travel on the map as a national priority.

legal challenges are being launched against hungary's constitution for violating laws. "we had hoped that hundred would have made the necessary changes, but this is not been the case so far -- we had hoped that hungary." the economy grew slightly more than expected. del futures are up about 78 points -- dell futures. [video clip] >> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary, c-span's "road to the white house" coverage takes you live to the candidate events all this week. >> we need to eliminate these entitlement programs. we need to cap them, cut them, cap them, send them back to the states. remove the federal oversight, and let the states have the flexibility to deliver these programs. >> we have brought to the forefront. others have tokenly talked

about it. they get in office and they do nothing about it. but right now, it is this liberty movement which is seen as a patriotic movement, an individual liberty movement that is saying to the country and to the world -- "we've had enough of sending our kids and our money around the world to be the policemen of the world." it's the time to bring them home! >> and as candidates get their message out meeting voters. >> governor? >> who's this between you here? >> i know, but i said hello. i was playing bashful so people can shake your hand. we're so happy. >> thank you, thank you. >> governor, i was undecided until right now. you have my vote. >> thank you so much. i appreciate that. >> absolutely not. >> the what? >> the endorsements in texas. >> we feel very good about that. turned it around. >> we feel like the conservatives are coalescing around our campaign, and that's going to be good for us as we go forward. >> and find more video from the campaign trail at cspan.org/campaign2012. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we're back with clifford rossi. the federal reserve weighed in and let's begin with the condition of the housing market. the federal reserve that housing prices have dropped 33% since 2006. host: what does that say to you? guest: what they are doing is putting in perspective just how bad the housing market remains. it is still weekak. we have a long way to go before we get out of this in terms of

an excess of supply of homes on the market as well as on the demand side. people are still sitting on the sidelines waiting to jump in. once they buy the home, they may realize another decline in home prices. host: that ratio, 55%. can you explain why it is important? guest: homeowners have historically looked at that as a store of wealth as opposed to as simply a place to live. people have looked at that as their nest egg. you see an erosion. it is problematic because it it is a psychological issue for borrowers.

"i've had significant price erosion in my home." that locks them into uncertainty to do something without home. paper thatwhite tissue tha was issued said what/ ? guest: the fed is saying to address the supply issues along with some of the regulators and coming up with properties that are back on the balance sheet of banks and fannie and freddie, looking to convert those into rental properties. we have seen a significant amount of vacancy rates for rental properties -- it might be a good opportunity to try to

look at that as a possible remedy to the supply overhang. host: would that require a congressional act? guest: not necessarily. half of these properties lie with tfannie mae and freddie mac. if they could get the fdha to help facilitate a problem -- the others are split between bankss and thrifts. that would be more difficult. the sec one is credit availability --the second is credit availability. homeowner uncertainty.

the fed did not speak to this. they want to increased credit availability. look at the surveys they did. we have tighter underwriting standards. they are looking at potential areas where we could go back to the basics and figure out how we could stimulate demand for home ownership. a significant problem of foreclosures is still with us today. the various refinancing programs have not really worked. we have less than a million of them that of taking advantage of the lower rates. mortgage modification programs have not been as successful. they have put people in about-- 900,000 people into permanent

modifications. the fed is suggesting we broaden our focus and look at other possible remedies to try to address the foreclosure problem. some would be to look at principal modification. there are folks on both sides of the debate that say this is a good thing and a bad thing. it comes down to what amount would be dropped to some level in order for them to make the payment more affordable. host: wasn't that the point of these programs? guest: the hamp program was around reducing payments to a certain level of debt to income ratio based on an interest rate deduction and short-term extension. there were available the of

principle modifications but could be done but that has been difficult to engineer because banks have been reluctant to do that. host: why did they issue the white paper? guest: that is a point of great discussion. one of the things that comes across to me is that they have seen that we have about half a million properties that are out there with depressing prices. after the moratorium that when in place, we're seeing as many as quad chart times that amount over the next two years of properties that will be coming in on our marketplace. the fed said we need to do something and to get a game plan, a framework to be able to

address these issues. host: what can the fed do? guest: they can work with the sister agencies to help move some of this all along. beyond that, some of the changes -- they can use the bully pulpit to move this along. they are the overseer of fannie and freddie and they're not necessarily wedded to what the fed wants to do. host: mike from wisconsin. go ahead. caller: i was wondering if you heard about reverse mortgages. that's my question. guest: reverse mortgages are mortgages that pursued a boat

for folks that are at or approaching retirement age -- are suitable for folks that are approaching retirement age to look to take some of the equity out of the home and use it as a way of getting a stream of cash payments over a point of time. the home reverts back to the issue of the reverse mortgage as opposed to the beneficiary of the estate. host: houston, texas. caller: i was wondering if this is a game by the fed to monetize mortgage just backed securities. any time they do any business at all, they have to do it through the primaries on wall street's.

the primaries on wall street did a big margin. this is a way to recycle money so that the banks on wall street can get a big commission. guest: understood. what the fed is proposing is less about coming up with a financing mechanism for addressing the demand and supply issues as much as a policy framework for how to address them. we still have a significant financing issue in this country with respect to over 90% of mortgages being securitized effectively by the government. we have had discussion on this and and so we can get more private capital solutions into the marketplace, i think we will be a stuck in this limbo

land. host: dr. rossi has nearly 25 years experience in the banking and government sector. explain what you've done with the lending groups and your role at freddie mac and fannie mae. guest: i was the head of risk management for citigroup's 3 under billion dollars secured assets portfolio. -- $300 billion. i developed credit policies with the underwriting of those mortgages as well as how much of a loan reserve which should be holding on to this and working with our default and collections to figure out what sort of policies that could be put in place to help struggling borrowers.

what about last roles was heading up mortgage policy for freddie mac -- one of my last roles. host: what has led to the situation that we've seen today? guest: my time from early 1990's at fannie mae, the end of 2003, right as they were on the cost of changing gears from a credit policy standpoint. when you look back on what happened, there is a mentality where lenders and the insurance companies were headed down the same path together in the name of competition and not in the name of prudent risk management. host: and congress' led them that way? guest: there are folks who own

the housing crisis as it stands today. when you look the policies, i think that puts in perspective some of the reasons or ammunition for what we saw such an increase. host: republican from california. caller: i want to thank the gentleman for his work. the fare reserve board cost this issue, this massive problem that we are having. the result of these so-called solutions that they are bringing fort will only cause more problems. we need to refinance and keep people in their homes. i suggest that we lower the principal on all these loans, lower the rates, keep the people

in their homes. take them off the foreclosure roles and that is one less house you have to worry about. the notion that they will comment and give us advice on how we deal with the problem when they caused this problem. guest: a couple of things. the federal reserve can make some policies here. principal modifications are tricky. one of the things we have to keep in mind is that somebody has to eat that reduction and principal. the taxpayers have put out about $140 billion to cover losses. the principal modifications would cost the taxpayers some

more money. that is a social question that congress needs to take up as to how far we want to go into this issue. host: we have a tweet -- that is not the one i wanted to read. i wanted to read this one. guest: there is a lot of political rhetoric up on the hill and that does not help. we need to hear all the good ideas. put everything on the table. the regulatory community needs to do the same thing. let's try to figure a way through this. despite the difficulties for people that are struggling, i think we have to realize that it

will be difficult given the state of our financing today to be able to subsidize some of this. we need much more creativity. host: we have this tweet from james. guest: we may have in this country over subsidized housing to things like the mortgage interest deduction and other areas to the disadvantage of other industries in sectors of the economy. we need to revisit this as we move forward. host: tyler, thank you for waiting. caller: my parents' house went on the foreclosure auction as of

6 minutes ago. they lived in the house for 15 years and they went through a modification. they could not pay the monthly payments. nobody really teaches the regular americans how their money works in the entire system. they are pinned against the wall in terms of what they know. they can ask. so many people sign their name on a note and it got sent over here and that bank failed. they are stuck saying, what do i do? there is no process for paying

attention to the guy that is trying to make the car payments. we're drowning. guest: that is one reason why i think you saw on the dodd-frank act that i should new record to reform, the new consumer financial protection bureau. they will give that measure a focus for ensuring that consumers understand the types of contracts they are entering into that were problematic in the days before the crisis. option arms. it is difficult to read the fine print and understand what that contract is all about. host: we go to alabama on the independent line. go ahead, caller. caller: i think the federal reserve needs to be eliminated.

they have cause problems in all areas of our economy. we need to be back on a gold standard. people should not buy what they do not have money to pay for. host: will be the impact of eliminating the federal reserve? guest: major financial shock waves. some people believe that they may have overreached from what they're standard mission is around monetary policy. we are in an unprecedented waters in regard to what has happened to the economy. so the fed may be charged with a bit of overreaching. i think the long-term ramifications from unwinding the

federal reserve would be severe. host: foreclosures fall. what does that mean for 2012? guest: there is some abatement from the activity of foreclosures in 2011 as we saw with the regulatory issues trying to get their arms around the mortgage servicing process. for 2012, will probably see another million properties entering into reo. a wave ofing about inventory coming into the market that will further lead to price declines. host: so filings will go up and not down. guest: that is my expectation.

we will be seven years removed from this housing crisis, which as been a long nightmare. host: what does that mean for folks who own a home, who are paying their mortgage every month? guest: i think what it means that they will simply see there is further erosion. we might see some stability in pricing. i don't call for a stabilization this year. we could see another 5% price decline. for those folks, continuing to pay on the mortgage is what they will probably want to do over the next several years. they have a light at the end of the tunnel.

host: a democrat in michigan. caller: good morning. i find bank of america is doing nothing but playing games. i went through four months of paperwork and faxing things to them. they said that they cannot help me. i try to get a payment in. it is crazy. i do not feel they want you to save your house. guest: the banks for many years neglected their mortgage servicing operation. they take a fee in for the purpose of servicing your mortgage. they did not invest to make a seamless process for homeowners.

now they are scrambling. the five largest servicers have tried to play catch-up. they have done a decent job. the regulators are now rushing in and this is creating an enormous amount of confusion right now for the homeowner and for the banks and for the regulators themselves. fromhing we're seeing these consent -- is to have a single point of contact or every homeowner that wants to : and understand what is going on with their mortgage, they have one person that they can go back to time and time again so that the paperwork is not a confusing mess. host: explain the overreach.

guest: there was an editorial in "the wall street journal" saying it might be more of a political maneuver on the part of the fed to try to look like they are doing more of housing than what they've done over the past several years. some folks are discount what the fed's motives is on this. ison't believe this politically motivated. i think there is fear about the direction of work this inventory problem is heading and the impact on prices. host: are enough people paying attention to it? guest: absolutely. i have been saying this for quite some time. we need a comprehensive battle

plan to address the housing issue, on all fronts -- demand, supply. we have the fragmented housing policy situation. hud and the federal reserve, the bank regulators -- host: congress. guest: all these different constituencies and it is hard to get that focus that we need in housing. host: the federal reserve board meets next week. what you expect there will say about the housing markets? guest: this was a framework. one issue i have with this white paper is that we are five years into this crisis yet we have another from work that is very generic.

we saw the treasury, with the document on reform, very generic. i doubt we will see that when they get back together because this is an interagency issue that will remain unresolved for months to come. host: we have an e-mail from robert in atlanta. guest: absolutely. with so many of these mortgages bundled up into securities with different investors, it is difficult to come count -- to extract them. the infrastructure is very poor to be able to understand where those mortgages wlie. back in the day, we were actually putting a first mortgage in combination with the

piggyback second lien mortgage. very difficult given the deficiencies in our infrastructure to uncover those things. host: francis is a republican. caller: i lost my home and a job making $113,000 a year. i owed $280,000 on it. i was in construction. you cannot go back into another job to make the difference to even keep the home. i did lose my home but i've helped people with the loan modifications to where they had to go through it and it shows up on their credit. they say they cannot make payments for three months. that ruins their credit.

i've worked with people who have done it and they lost their homes. there were no different than the people that did lose them. for everybody that has lost their home, you'll see a seven- year cycle or a 10-year cycle because of the bankruptcy. host: so what you want to know is? caller: there is a lot of houses that were lost before the loan modifications. host: ok. guest: this is a difficult problem. what we're finding with the modification programs that have been in place is because we are treating borrowers effectively all the same.

the rules that qualify are all the same. a lot of these borrowers are people that have lost their income or their jobs and they are failing right then and there and there is no other remedy for them then to go to the foreclosure problem. o triageto find ways t these borrowers. some people are in default and they need help because of a circumstance. we need to do with people -- some people will not make it in a form of a modification and those people have to find another way out, possibly a short sale to make this more humane. host: do you think this forces the administration and congress

to do something? guest: much of it depends in terms of the economic situation. if we can see improvement in the u.s. economy, we can get that unemployment rate down below 8%, will have to see appreciable change before we can move forward on this. right now we're in a quagmire. we're five years into this. i'm wondering why we have not thought of more creatively about how to deal with this. i understand we have to stabilize things. there are things we could do to make things a little bit more efficient and more transparent to the homeowners. host: go through those options. guest: to create a good bank

divided by bad bank situation out of freddie and fannie. we take the portfolios and we would have those worked down together. we would combine fannie and freddie and focus on that part. we take their front purchases of loans and we would combine those together. there are differential policies still being made between the agencies that creates a vast amount of confusion. that would bring transparency and efficiency into the public market. host: mark from michigan. caller: you discussed fannie and freddie. i thought that whatever fannie and freddie owes, all-out one

year that they can negotiate and whenever they need to make good, a tax write-off. the concept is is somebody borrows money for the loan for a house, you have a 10-year cycle allow one year not to pay for that loan. that would be negotiable depending on finances. "hey, i would like the available but not to pay this loan because i do not have a job." build on that type of cycle if you do not want to take over their house. if that happens the next year, increased the rate a little bei. compassion for those people that want to keep their house. guest: this goes in the spirit

of creative solutions. i have written about this before. coming up with mortgage products which would address a significant amount of borrowing uncertainty and psychology. i think the idea -- what is keeping people on the sidelines is the concern that if they get into this mortgage contract, they might experience and unemployment spell or a reduction in income that makes it difficult for them to meet debt payment. having some kind of mortgage insurance or employment insurance component to the could help inuct - that regard as well as other areas with respect to the possibility that they could experience further declines in the equity that they put down on the home.

these are in the spirit of credit mortgage products solutions that should be looked at more closely because it could induce more homeowners back into the marketplace if they knew they could take out some of the uncertainties that they have. host: people want to follow you and get your latest take on the housing industry, work in the read your writings/ guest: i have a blog. go into the robert a. smith school of business website. under faculty, you'll be able to find myblo blog site. host: barry is next. caller: we had the rtc and they've figured it out when they had $500 billion in assets that they had to take care of.

my understanding is there were $396 billion in bad real estate assets. that was -- all the things that the financial industry had done and we became an equity partner with the banks. this program has been a disaster. guest: there are things that the regulators could do better the next time around. having lived through the thrift prices, i write about the need to be able to create public- private types of arrangement that leave the taxpayer whole by the end of the day. equity sharing arrangements have not been as successful because

we have not found a way to be able to figure out whether that is something that we want to do or not. we still do not have somebody accountable in the administration or the regulatory community. i agree that there are a variety of different mechanisms that we can try to put in place to see if they work and that is more of what i think we should start to look at. host: don in new mexico. caller: good morning. one consideration was to move the homeowners to the bankruptcy process. they never followed through on that. i believe would be farther through if we had move these home owners through the bankruptcy process. the problem is that it would

expose the banks to the amount of money that they have in these bad loans as well as the investment companies. guest: the banks have written down a lot of these bad assets. a loaded question from a public policy standpoint. some believe the quickest way to find a bottom in this market is off and toband-aid get the market to stabilize as quickly as possible. there are others that would save by doing that, there is a fairness aspect for a number of themowners, moving improv through a bankruptcy proceeding

like that would be a significant blow to the housing market as well as to homeowners psyche at this point. host: which the people be watching for that spells trouble or progress? guest: watched those numbers around for closure, particularly in the first half of this year and see where they are heading and to see if the government has policies going forward. consider to watch what is going on with home prices in general. just watch it whenever from month to month does not give a trend. when people say that home prices have come out by 0.2%, there is a lot seasonal issues going on. be careful what you are watching. host: clifford rossi, thank you

for your time. that does it for teh "washington journal." -- that does it for the "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> mayors from across the country are coming to watch, d.c. -- are coming to washington, d.c., for their annual conference. see live coverage at