host: an internet blackout. more than a dozen popular web sites and at least 10,000 others will go dark today to protest a pair of anti-piracy bills making their way through congress. website say the proposal will get the internet and stifle free speech. the supporters, film and internet industry, want to aim at pirated products overseas. we want to get your take this morning of the protest and the issue. this protest is expected to block of free speech of tens of millions of people. we will take your calls, emails, and tweets during the first 45 minutes this morning. if you are for the internet out dial --

post your comments on facebook or send us an e-mail. let me show you "the washington post" -- let me show you the website. you can still search on the website. go to google.com. then you can still search in

that bar. below that, it says tell congress please do not censer the web. if you click on that, it will bring you to a page where you are allowed to read about the legislation. also, it will let you roll-up's -- also, it will let you know who your member of congress is a you can call them. facebook is still up and running, but there are other popular web sites like with the pds that for 24 hours will be blacked out. and we want to know if you think this is a good tactic? what do you think about the issue itself? we will read more for the papers today to let you know who is for and against it. melissa, who was against the internet blackout, what do you think? how will this impact you? caller: i am against it in

general, because i think it is an infringement on free speech in people's right to share information. if i am not mistaken, there is a u.s. code that guarantees american citizens the right to use certain materials, provided they are for educational purposes, such as wikipedia. as a blogger, this definitely affects me. it is information i share with people who read my blog. this can affect a free exchange of information. i am against the black out because i think it defeats the purpose of sharing the information. >host: you are against the legislation at the same time? what do you write about? caller: my blog is called

graphaphobia. it is kind of a play on words. i post product reviews. the post's news articles, photographs, just about everything. it is just a free exchange of information. and a place for me to report on certain things. i also use my twitter account reached early to do that. again sopa and pipa would infringe on that. >> melissa has been following that, in some people might not be. let me read about the legislation.

that is a little bit about the legislation and what it is intended to do. these websites like wikipedia and craigslist. it gives you a little bit of what they're trying to do there. the you think this is a good tactic? argue for or against it? sheldon, you are for blacking out the web sites. why? go ahead. caller: i am absolutely against it. and from that website i can provide real news about the wars and afghanistan and iraq and the war in iran to people who have

no idea about what is going on from the republican-based c- span. and host: why would either one of these bills stop you from doing what you're doing? caller: they will block the ip address and people will not be able to find out is going on with the war. i believe that is what is going on with the legislation here. the cut off news about the war. host: melanie is against internet block oackout. caller: i am against it. i think it should not be blocked, but because i have got a lot of feedback from it, and i am not for it at all host: how

you use these web sites. caller: i use them all the time. to use it for your job or personal use? caller: personal use. host: did you know about the purchase on the web before we started talking about it? caller: no, and i did not know anything about it. caller: i believe staunchly in the ability of any private entity to voice their opinions through whatever means they feel possible, as long it is safe in does not affect other people. i feel they're terrible, but they are terrible for other reasons other than just the pace -- face value. there is a whole technical

aspect associated with the policing. i feel they are unrealistic and lashing out to people who feel like they are affected by the copyright infringement. it seems inappropriate. it seems to lash out at one of the fundamental rights of americans have up held for the past 200 years. host: these bills are inappropriate? they go too far in your opinion? caller: yes. host: wikipedia's explanation of what they're trying to do --

there is a blog on your screen right now. if you go to this web site, what he was recently saying is they have a philosophical roots in the free software movement, which is the very antithesis of what this is about. this particular viewpoint should surprise no one. meanwhile, they are well aware that they have their own system it biases and has organized a project to answer them. in this case the bias shows through in most participants find this to be a good thing. i have to put myself or in the skeptics' camp. a non-profit web site.

michael is for the internet lockoblackout. we just talk to you. we will go to amy. caller: i am actually against the computer blacking out. that is entertainment for a lot of people purite. guest: so you do not agree with that tactic? -- host: so you do not agree

with the tactic? caller: the thing about it is is my son uses wikipedia every day. right now he is in to the planets. he looks of information about the planets and stars and everything. when he gets up this morning, it is not going to be there, and he is going to be heartbroken. host: it is for 24 hours. what do you make of that? caller: i think that is too long. as a user of the website, you are against their tactic? caller: yes, i am. host: had you heard about it before this morning? caller: the first time i heard about it was yesterday. host: i was at a hotel room and had the news on. i heard about it and did not

agree with it. i am against piracy. i do not think people should be doing that. i just think the tactic is wrong. host: are you for the legislation that would try to stop the theft of stones and music and things like that? caller: i am. host: will you continue to follow the debate? caller: yes, i will. host: here is the fight inside --e washington journal"

here is a quote from the ceo, jimmy williams -- lia, you are for the black out from minnesota this morning. caller: i am for the blackout.

it raises awareness. it has been advertised on the web site itself for the past week and a half that it would happen today. i think it gives us an example of what could possibly happen as a result of this legislation. host: have you called your member congress? caller: not today. host: but you plan to? caller: it is still 6:00 in the morning. yes. it has been advertised on the web site itself, which i have used many times a day. i am a stay of. whether i am researching something for myself or my kids, you can't find anything on wi kipedia. i think the legislation, movies and so-called artists have so --

has such unreasonable expectations receive corporate money. >> about legislation and support for it, let me show you the front page this morning. this is the front page of "the denver post" -- senator michael bennett was for it in now reconsidering the support for legislation. also in the paper, the senator co-sponsoredd who wa an earlier bill has now announced his opposition. six republicans who voted for the bill before have written to

the majority leader harry reid has written to slow the buildup and so it can be modified and considered later. support for the legislation has weakened, and the momentum of the controversial bills has been largely halted, according to " washington post." barry who is against the internet blackout. from north carolina. good morning. caller: i would like to say i am definitely against the whole protesting, because the protest these days is so futile. there is no point in processing. just take your business elsewhere. -- there is no point in protesting. either sit back and enjoy it -- host: what about what i just read? before today's protest on the web, these bills look like they

were born to make their way through congress, and now several supporters of us but to slow down a little bit, and it looks like the momentum has been halted. some would say it has worked. caller: i am grateful. there still needs to be some legislation. maybe the artists need to try the right approach by building the fan base before they try to go nationwide. they are getting support from people, and they're not even building their whole personnel base. they did not take part in the big part of is going on in the entertainment industry. host: there have been compromises made already. here is what "the washington post" says --

caller: all it is is a simple matter of programming. when coast line up like music or something, you know that music has the same signature that is on buckwhea the no-play list. host: so you think they could police themselves? caller: just a simple $30 program, and there could to go ahead. host: let's hear from a calller who is for this legislation. caller: it is raising awareness. a lot of people did not follow politics and are not aware of what is going on. i do not agree with legislation, because it opens the door for a

slippery slope. when you get the government an opportunity to step in and center any kind of web site, it opens the door for who knows? but is giving them free rein -- host: there should be no regulation of the internet? caller: to be perfectly honest, i do not think so. the internet is an open platform for free speech. it is only more or less what is here in the united states. we have issues when we watch other countries do the same thing to their constituents and citizens. host: we are taking a poll on our facebook page about whether you are for or against it. 83 people are for today's internet black out. if you want to take the poll, go facebook.com/cspan.

let me show you this tweet -- that is what she has to say this morning. here is an e-mail -- i am going to read "the wall street journal" editorial who disagrees with the email in the view or on twitter -- first, let me show you the other news this warning. this is the front page of "the

wisconsin journal" of the recall effort. that is the update on that story. as many of you know, congress is back. the house came back yesterday, and they were in session today. it is the vote on whether to approve or disapprove of raising the debt ceiling. it has been called largely a symbolic vote. the house faces the issues of last year again. the front page of "the washington post" -- we're going to talk to senatorwo senators. then also this morning more

stories about this peril tax cut, which we will bounce off of the lawmakers later. the national section of "the new york times" -- conference inors' town here in washington, and that is what they're going to be talking about as they meet to talk about jobs. "the washington times" has a story about obama's white house pushes oil recovery. what they talked about oil pipelines and jobs, but the white house press secretary said the report was not referring to the keystone pipeline. then, an update on yesterday's

question we ask all of you, whether or not presidential candidates should release their tax records. all the papers have another front page. here is what it romney had to say. -- mitt romney had to say. >> i have been paying close to 15%. my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past. host: mitt romney yesterday. here is "the new york times" story --

"the financial times" in their front page of notes this about the issue --

"the wall street journal" editorial weighs in on mitt romney's 15% -- saying he needs to come out now with some sort of big reform proposal to the tax cut of tree as today's news that he pays about a 15% rate. if your interested in reading more about this, let me show you "the usa today" how they break it down. they take a look at what people assume to be mitt romney's income over the past year. they break it down where he has received money, speeches, serving on boards, and then they tried to guess what that would mean if he paid a 15% tax rate.

that is "usa today." internet blackout a popular internet web sites today. there is wikipedia. at least 10,000 other website saying they will either go black or block out their website. they are protesting a pair of anti-piracy bills if the white house. you are against this bill. why? caller: i am from massachusetts and against it, because i am a big internet junkie. i am for it because it is definitely censorship, and we're letting the government reached too far in your rights, and if we do not stop them, it could go on and on. what is next? will they police the cd burners we burn? will they come into our home and

see if we are copying cds? what is next? host: let me get reaction to " the wall street journal" editorial -- they go on to say even the founders recognized the benefit of intellectual property, which is why the constitution tells congress to promote science and

useful art the exclusive right to their respective ridings the discoveries. bettors article one, section 8 of the constitution. for caller: i bet you could say the same thing about oil. we get our oil from saudi arabia, and they dictate the prices for what we pay them. they dictate the cost of fuel price. you cannot win in this situation. are required to limit ourselves and development because we want to create laws to punish our own citizens? we cannot control the world. host: ok. james is for it in san diego, california. and caller: i am totally for it. i think this is a great tactic to wake up society. a lot of society does not pay attention to politics or anything, and these laws i see

as a little more sinister. some people actually suggest we are leaning towards a government china-biocontrol on the internet. --host: the niki reaction to wht lamar smith said -- let me get your reaction to what lamar smith said. caller: that this kind of like mitt romney saying the -- he would sign or obama would not impose any of the implications of that bill. that is a pretty scary bill. host: ok.

the white house on saturday weighed in on this debate and said on the white house blog -- here's a look at the blog. they cited with -- they sided with the websites that decided to go black today. jeffrey is against this blackout in bethlehem, pennsylvania. caller: hello. i am against the wikipedia blackout because they claim this action is anti-censorship and pro-freedom. it is pro-anarchy. they are willing about information that wants to be free.

they claim to be these noble people unless it involves their own information. then that should be protected. if it is someone else's information, everybody should be able to have it for free. that is anarchy. host: here's a story on talking points memo about mitt romney's campaign and racking up some big endorsements. an unofficial nod of support for mitt romney from george h. w. bush. this from "politico." todd platts will not seek another term. back to the presidential

candidates. comments in the debate about turkey and here's an update on that story. host: and then "the washington post" -- we showed you the moment from monday night's debate what he was asked about his comments in the past about janitors and food stamp president.

hos host: 10 story about 2012 politics. the electorate is split over obama in a new poll. president obama's job ratings have crept back from lows. host: todd is for the internet blackout in virginia.

caller: this will ruin the economy even worse. they will not fund internet web sites now that might be the next innovation. host: ok. caller: it is just going to destroy it more jobs in the game companies that i'm a big fan of. but they get their game out commercially and they will not be able to do that anymore. host: you say this will destroy jobs. caller: yes. host: what about the millions lost by the music and film industry? caller: that is not true. they make millions of money.

if companies made a better service, they would not be losing some much money. host: jerome is against the blackout. caller: this kind of got sprung on me in the last -- hello? we have a time delay. i'm not as well versed. the guy from pennsylvania, i agree with him. he was against it. the last caller about the music industry. i cannot speak to that. being here in south carolina, the debates are going on. i think that speaker gingrich and the last thing you read from the paper, i think gingrich makes a good and valid points about the its food stamps

because it is not a question of race or anything like that. host: we will leave it there. tony is for the blackout in virginia. good morning. caller: i am for it. i have to say that i have not been following the topic, but i have noticed that over the recent years there have been efforts, strong effort from of -- thens to sort intellectual property laws in favor -- to favor them. can favre them in situations like this. vor them.courts can favre th

i think it is geared more towards social protection and i think this is a step in that direction and mostly for corporations and anti-business. i think it will limit innovation and definitely it does fall into the area of free speech. host: is there a compromise, some way for the sides to come together? caller: i do not know. i think there is above my pay grade. i think the weight is going, it will be hard -- i think the way it is going, it will be hard. people want it to be the way it is now. there is a cost for a iit.

enough certain if it is to say i'm paying my internet bills for that to cover that aspect. if you run a business, you shut up the right to protect your property -- you should have the right to protect your property. i'm just seeing more and more that it seems that what business is doing is changing -- you read something earlier about the constitution. host: that was then "the wall street journal" editorial. caller: it talked about the limits. big business or corporations do not want to have limits on their intellectual property. even some black walt disney cartoons -- even something like

walt disney cartoons becomes a non-public domain. they want a continuance on ownership. host: linda on twitter says -- there is a nonprofit group trying to help to organize the strike, the protest on the web today. according to their website, they're helping to organize the strike. you can go for a list of web sites that are striking. we talked about some of them -- wikipedia, craigslist, boing boing, and others will be dark

today. you get the fullest and there is on your screen. the the id is for the blackout from san francisco - -vivian. caller: i think i heard a tiny bit about it last evening around 7:00 p.m. i have the tv on and i heard it now. for starters, from the beginning, anytime something this big -- people are finding out about it too late to stop it, other than by wikipedia and craigslist being turned off. to me, the right fair means that whoever wants to put it through does not want anybody to have a month to think and figure

out what they are doing. i am not convinced that there are large corporations who are trying to protect people, but star players -- guitar players and composers. thousands and thousands of people. i do not care if they have the patent along her if they never sold their songs and their cd's to thousands and thousands of people. they are still 10,000 times where they were before the internet. i do not buy it. host: are you going to call your member of congress? caller: i sent e-mails. can you call?

host: you can call, you can e-mail. caller: i will e-mail something. i do not know if i'll be able to convince anybody. if i can find a place on the internet to do it. host: go to wikipedia. type in your zip code and it will tell you who your representative is and you can call or e-mail and let them know how you feel about this issue. host: i will do what in the next hour -- caller: i will do it in the next hour. this is not a good thing. to keep certain things different

or to put a wall around information. this is not so that singers save money. host: amid talk about those -- let me tell you about those who support the legislation. hopefully people will go online and find an accurate definition of online piracy. this is a definition of piracy from freedictionary.com -- those are two definitions that fall under piracy. vivian is for it. caller: go on. host: what is your reaction? that is the definition of

piracy. caller: absolutely. after something is copied, people will not be sending $10 in every time they copy it one more time. patents never did last. after a certain point in time, whenever you made -- if you made a new drug or a new refrigerator, it is out there. people have the information. how many people are supposed to pay you for something you thought up once? host: thank you. we will move on to the topic of congress and the 2012 legislative agenda. up next is nan hayworth from new york and then we will speak with

a democrat, michael capuano, from massachusetts. [video clip]ht back. >> 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. >> some will say we are reactionary. others will say we stand for socialism. there will be the -- it is time for a change. we will hear nothing that we've not heard before. >> we look back at 14 man who ran for the office and lost.

go to our website to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> let our opponents stand on the status quo. let the opposition collect their $10 million in secret money from the privileged few and let us find 1 million ordinary americans who will contribute $25 each to this campaign, and million-member club with members who will not expect special favors for themselves but a better land for us all. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. >> only those who of shown the resolve to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard it in the challenging

times that lie ahead. [applause] mr. president, the decade of the century must see the lasting time of -- lasting triumph of liberty. the world needs britain and burned needs us -- and britain need us. >> margaret thatcher is currently being portrayed on the screen by meryl streep. more than 100 appearances from the british house of commons. >> there is some countries the would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a european central bank. that's not our view. we do not wish to hand over

power to other powers. >> what you want, whenyo you want. "washington journal" continues. host: let's turn our attention to the 2012 spending agenda. the big issue is the payroll tax extension, extending the holiday. you are one of the conferees that will go with senate democrats and tried to negotiate some kind of compromise between the two. they left with a two month deal. let me show you "the new york times."

guest: well, i i do not like to view it in partisan terms, greta. i see ample opportunities. there's a lot of common ground with our democratic colleagues. we know the house democratic colleagues quite well, having worked this year with them. i was just with peter welch last night on another program. we agree that congress has a low approval -- a high disapproval ratings. one of the stories that is not told is there is much more in common that you might imagine. host: where are the areas of compromise?

guest: i think there are going to be -- i read one account. our formal meetings have not started, although the republican conferees have met a few times. on $150 billion worth of cuts, there was a dispute involving something like $10 billion. there are provisions in terms of receiving unemployment insurance, certain types of benefits that may be contentious between democrats and republicans. host: back to "the new york times." there will drop the most controversial provisions.

host: is that true? will those provisions be dropped/ ? guest: the rest been no discussion -- there has been no discussion. i am one of eight. our discussions have been preliminary. issues of how we approach the task of being in this conference committee and looking at the scope of the issues that we're facing. those are well known because the senate and the house bills are a matter of public record and that is as far as we have gone. host: should those provisions be dropped? guest: i think they should be negotiated. this bill had democratic votes

as well. these are no provisions that democrats find objectionable. that's why you have a committee, so you can work out a consensus. i imagine there'll be a vigorous discussion and perhaps there will be other ways that we can work those issues. one of the benefits qualifications is an area where we can anticipate there might be some difference of opinion adth the epa rules have been topic of discussion throughout the year. host: one part of the debate in december was whether or not unemployment benefits be extended or shortened? will republicans hold strong on reducing the amount of weeks

that unemployment benefits can be received? guest: the principle that we need to look at the benefit of conferring unemployment compensation from the federal level verses utilize those tax payer dollars in other ways is one that has been discussed not only by republicans but also by democrats. we need to grow and this is the fundamental challenge. the issue of state conferred unemployment insurance has been one that has received a lot of discussion. there is a balance point there in which we may not see the benefits of prolonged unemployment insurance when we should direct those funds

towards the economy itself. host: let me go back to december and that week leading up to christmas. how would you characterize the back and forth and then how the republican party was characterized after that in the house? guest: we as the house majority -- november 2010 made a strong statement about where the american people wanted to see the government go in terms of intervention in our economic lives. we looked at the bills that the senate returned to us. as a doctor, i can tell you that roughly 15 -- i am one of 15

doctors and to have a two-month extension of the medicare reimbursement schedule is hard on our seniors and doctors. we sent a good bill to the senate. we did determine that we wanted to take a stand on this. what was troubling to me was that this was portrayed as opposition to extending the payroll tax holiday. it was not. those of us who remained in washington to be advocates on behalf of making a longer commitment and getting that was done before the end of the year , working very hard to counter the prevailing impression that was pushed within the media t, and the media did seem to

take the stand that we were opposed to the payroll holiday. but we were not. it was clear that we were not going to provide the reassurance that people needed to the extent the people were attending to this issue there was a large amount of anguish and we did not want to make that more difficult. i support our leadership in determining and they did so with the proper consultation with those of us who were working on it that we should make that technical correction in the bill. there were complaints that the new threshold level and what could be included in the payroll tax holiday, we made the correction and said we will

pursue this again before the end of that two-month extension. host: some of your freshman colleagues were upset about the leadership's decision, upset about the last leadership -- about the last year. here is "the hill" newspaper -- host: do you share that concern? guest: i think all of us who revere -- there are many democratic colleagues who feel it is time to reduce the federal government in which to be our citizen lives. we feel there's more progress we can make. i view last year as productive.

do we make the touchdown that we all hoped we would far side? no. progress.d make cong we are 1/3 of the levers of legislation. i would say we have succeeded in bringing the whole issue of reducing the size and scope of the federal government to the floor, and that is a victory. life is full of situations, as we all know, in which we do not achieve everything we aspire to achieve, but we keep working on it. host: let's go to the phone

calls. tom republican on the line. caller: can you correct me if i am wrong and what i saw prior to the recent break in legislature. did not president obama say there would not be our recess unless the payroll tax extension was done for a whole year? didn't i hear him say there would be an off brand? is in this two-month extension exactly what of free and is? it seems to me like his own party made a fool of him, because he said column left, and the senate said column right, and president obama basically said than column right. >guest: the president did say we should have a one-year extension

of the payroll tax holiday. i see it referred to those sequesters that were made it wrong by the budget control act. slightly different topic. nonetheless, the president supported what we in the house, with democratic votes and republican majority votes obviously, voted to do in december, december 13. so it is unfortunate, regrettable. i wish it were different. the president, but my light, should have insisted that the senate to return to the table with house republicans that are willing to do that. this has been the scene for a certain part of the year, most of the year, for republicans when we look at president obama.

he has said many things which which we agree -- with which we agree, but we need the president to back those statements with actions that manifest the meaning of those statements. one of them is the payroll tax extension. host: will the payroll tax extension happen? will it be extended for a year? guest: i do think it will be extended for a year. the question is, how do we manage that irresponsibly? host: will the 1500 or less be taxed, and how well social security recuperate two years lost? will they rob peter to pay paul? guest: that is the crux of the issue. payroll taxes could to fund it

so security and medicare. the current tax holiday applies to what is used to fund social security. it is absolutely true that we need to anticipate that those benefits will be paid on the other end of these contributing lies, so we need to find a way to compensate for that, and that is what we did in the december 13 bill. that is what we aimed to do in the legislation that we craft with the conference committee. host: bella from maryland. you were on next with knee and hayworth. i am going to move on. philadelphia, richard, independent calller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. i understand the tax code has to be rewritten.

i wanted to know from the representative, in your constituency, what is the first thing you have in restricting the tax code that has been going on for decades. it has not actually been done. here we are now coming and even the different conditions are saying that it has to be structured in order to be effective. there is obviously pushed back because there is the deficits in the tax code. from your vantage point, what is the push back? host: i can speak more broadly to the issue. interestingly enough i get a lot of support, and it seems to be from across the spectrum to make the tax code flatter and fairer. when i tell mixed audiences that i support that kind of a flagging -- flattening, i get

applause. where you get the push back when it comes to restructuring the tax code, it comes from all the different groups who are now favored in the tax code. there are lots of them. there are industry groups, yes. there are charity groups as well. there is the whole housing and mortgage industry that clearly has a piece of the tax code right now. so i think the way we're going to get this done, and i am speaking for myself, but the way we're going to get this done is to take a comprehensive approach to the tax code, personal and corporate or business tax rates need to be addressed. i think we can make brought progress, and there certainly has been discussion in the news

that the corporate tax rate, in particular, we may be able to get consensus on in reducing vat rate and making ourselves more competitive with the rest of the world, because right now we do drive business overseas because our tax rate is so high, relative to other nations in the free world. host: republican line next. caller: good morning. i am sitting and listening while driving to work to the congress woman. she said the press that has to stand strong and act on what he says, but he cannot act without congress that does not compromise with him. everyone says they want a compromise. i heard to parker's people yesterday of the dues saying you

guys are coming back to work and say you want to compromise, but you are still living in the last congress of the last month of the year we just went through. -- i heard congressman yesterday's saying you guys are coming back to work and say you want to compromise. clearly we have to face each compromise with much agility as we can. i think, in terms of consensus and cooperation, that certainly is what the people i represent in the hudson valley of new york have asked me over and over again. if i get one, it more frequently than any other is all of you in washington, and i consider myself to be a representative of my district, so i do not consider myself to be specifically a creature of washington, but when you are in

washington, you have to get along. you have to prove you can move forward. we cannot move forward unless we have support from the democratic and republican side of the spectrum. we have a house majority that is republican. we have a democrat -- president it was democratic, and that does create certain natural differences. it is a constant challenge. it is not a matter of reliving the past, but clearly the structural issues we face are fairly constant. host: do you think some of the republican side that are upset about the way things turned out in december, do they need to compromise a little bit more? guest: i think it is a matter of

looking globally at what we can accomplish. this is something that applies to all of human behavior. i am a parent and have concerns. i run my own small business and run a medical practice. there are ways in which we have to step back from the individual battles and look at the entire landscape of our goal. i think that is one of the ways that we tried with colleagues to think about these things. host: that sounds like a yes? guest: it is strategy issues. i personally think we're going to it be as far the more it -- for the more unified we are.

we need to bring democratic articles on board. i think we will make ever stronger progress. host: there is a tweet that says why is the republicans' way so much time setting -- cutting the size of government instead of creating jobs? guest: we think they go hand in hand. i agree completely with miguel. it is a dog-creating engine. those of us who favor small government, most republicans do, feel that whenever the federal government takes from us it better be for purposes that no one else can serve. that is why we hearken back to the constitution, because the design of the federal government really well.

the interventions that are made specifically to try to provide federal resources to a sector are often divines -- undermined. i am the original sponsor of a bill to allow mortgage lenders to fund energy-saving improvements on their home more easily. not through direct intervention with taxpayer dollars, because the marketplace enterprise, our own common sense will do a far better job. whenever the government does tends to become political. host: susan, a democrat and texas. caller: citizens have watched the republicans claim about free market, but not fair market for years. we have watched in the bush congress do away with regulation

of glass stiegel. we have watched the republicans backed by alex, the american legislative exchange council. we are not stupid out here. we see what is going on. the new congress has done nothing. they are opposed to everything. nothing has happened, and we are well aware of it. guest: susan, i would dispute the fundamental, that we are opposed to everything. we're certainly not. in fact we're for the common sense of the american people. i would submit to you that aour biggest problem economically is the federal government has created conditions that make the

playing field unfair and uneven, and i agree with you about that, but when one we look at the tax code it is full of provisions that provide special advantages to one or another group while the rest of us have to make up the difference. we do need to make conditions bearer, and the primary way to do that is to assure that we pulled away from federal regulations that are not inherently unfair in do not make sense and disadvantaged our consumers and our bigger enterprise sector. host: let's go to brad next to is an independent in cleveland, ohio. we lost him. we will go on to jobs and who was a republican in maryland heights maryland. caller: you look great this

morning. it is congress -- is congress how words? con i am a bit fan of tom is the slave master jefferson. it's as we hold these men to be self evident. what is congress doing? everything i see is hypocrisy. and i am a young man. i am a young african american, and everything i see is truly hypocrisy going on. there is only one or president of icy that is michael brown. he is the only person i see tried to make a stand and fight for the people. it o'clock in the morning in front of the dmv by himself. -- 8:00.

guest: i agree with you we have to look very carefully with a certain amount of healthy skepticism at how those who are supposed to serve our public are doing their jobs. we have to be transparent. we have to be accountable. those words are used frequently, but i think the way thensure that we're getting performance we need from our legislators is to look at how vigorously they advocate for the principles that the founders represented. as you have said, as thomas jefferson himself did not live those principles as fully, and that is an understatement in the way in which african-americans

were treated. we think of that acutely with rev. king's birthday obviously, but it is crucial that we create fairness. that we work steadily toward lifting burdens. toward being honest and fair and open up about the way we treat regulatory burdens, about the way we treat our taxpayers. you can see that in our boats. you can see that in the legislation is that we endeavor to pass. -- you can see that in our votes. it is our job to be informed and well aware, independently of what the political figures tell us. it is important that we read our newspapers from a variety of sources to assess what we're doing and where we need to go. host: emma has a tweet --

guest: there is brought in medicare. it is an enormous issue. -- there is fraud in medicare. it is pursued frequently by what is considered to be small players who take advantage of lax supervision of some of the provisions of medicare. the best way we can combat medicare fraud, the most direct way, absent new legislation, which should be directed as much as possible, but is for every medicare recipient to keep a calendar or diary of their visits to their doctors, what is done on what date.

when you receive that record every couple of months, go through it and cross check, because that is the way we can spot fraud. if there are charges being made to your medicare or medicaid account that the services did not take place, are medicare beneficiaries are the first line of defense. the other key is never give your medicare number to anyone who asks for it, unless it is a legitimate doctor's office. if anyone is offering you something or free service or free merchandise related to medicare, look immediately at that with great skepticism. never give out your number. if americans did that, did those who are trying to pursue fraud will find it much more differently right off the bat.

rules of congress are unless you are strictly pursuing a charitable activity, you cannot do it. i have not had that kind of opportunity come up. host: ophthalmologist for 16 years before coming to congress. i would like to make a couple of statements and hear your -- you made the statement awhile ago about jobs moving overseas. that was a bill in the bush administration, if a company goes offshore, they get a tax break. democrats tried to nullify that last year. at the republicans have blocked it. i would like to know why. -- the republicans have blocked it. the second one, you were talking about the corporate tax rate needs to be lowered.

exxon mobile made $16 billion in profits. paid no income tax. got $6 million refund. guest: what we need to do is make the tax code simple, flat, loophole free and take care of the zero cash tax issue, and that is really what we're talking about. we need to remove the special favors that have really treated some aspects of industry or business much more favorably than others. so there is no question in my mind about that. in terms of the legal provision you were talking about, i am not

aware of a bill that came to the house's attention that would have endeavored to resend some sort of provision of that sort, but on the financial-services committee it may have gone to another committee jurisdiction. we can look that up. the fundamental principle of not making the tax code flatter and fairer and internationally competitive, which is crucial, remains the same. host: in these negotiations over the parallel tax cut holiday, you would not agree to a provision to increase taxes on oil and gas. it is a matter of looking at fundamentally in structurally. i am not looking to seek any particular industry or energy sector. we need to rationalize this and

make it fair. when the tax code treats some differently than others, the rest of us have to make up for it, and that includes individual taxpayers. host: the bureau labor of statistics as one less than -- list of 1 percent signed science unfair business regulation as their failure. guest: there is a climate we're talking about, and that is the crucial issue. i talked to men and women in business, primarily smaller businesses that is the more direct opportunity that you get. when i go through our district and talk with these folks, they tell us the accumulated burdens of complying with regulations make it very difficult for them to grow as much as they could and hire as many people as they

would like to. every regulation brings an obligation of cost to make sure you are complying with it, and that also brings liability. if for some reason you are found not to be in compliance. that creates are real chilling affect. there is a sensible level of regulation. what we're talking about is a balance. caller: i have a statement to make about retirement pay for the congressman in new york. he gets $174,000 retirement pay, but get this man is still in office and running and it's full pay their. what about term limits? what do you think about that? guest: i would agree with the principle that this is public service and should not be a career, and lots of folks talk

about that, and i am perfectly willing to forgo any sort of pension for myself as a consequence of serving in congress. the issue of term limits, certainly i am willing to be term-limited. the ultimate term limits is a vote. it goes back to the responsibility of all of us to look at our representatives are doing, not only in terms of concerns for our individual districts, which are crucial, but also in terms of the policy that creates the federally- generated climate for what we need to do. we have an economy that is suffering because we of such a heavy burden of regulation and taxes in future spending

obligations that have not been managed the way they need to be. host: do you have a tough race? there are three democrats that have stepped up to challenge you for reelection. guest: i look at every day not from the standpoint of a political contest, but from the standpoint of am i doing the best to serve the people of our district? host: let's hear from mike in honolulu. caller: good morning. it is 3:25 in the morning. thank god i am a republican purit. obviously from this wonderful presentation you are having today can be a party of attraction. anyway, my comment is this, i have been watching the democrats and republicans acting in

congress like we are on different planets. so i read about thomas jefferson, and he said when he was a young man helping to write our constitution that every 15 years we've should have a constitutional convention. as much as i love our history, it is time for us to be a parliamentary system where one party who wins is like the u.k., they come in and have a cabinet, they established the budgets. host: are running out of time with the congress woman. constitutional convention. -- i am running out of time with the congress woman. guest: i could not agree more that we as citizens need to pay ever-closer attention to the way our federal government and

legislatures manifest the values and the principles that are represented in the constitution. i think one of our biggest problems from the federal level is we have gone away from, far away from the concept, the beautiful and powering concept that the federal government should have a light hand upon us. the way in which we accomplished better government is by having people like you, michael, who undertook the time and effort to go and read what jefferson voted in said. -- and said. we need to multiplier what you're doing by 300 million citizens, and that would make a real difference. host: one more calller for you. dorothy. caller: i come to you in the

name of jesus, but the mess that is going on in the white house, nobody did that but the republicans and some of the democrats. and above that is enough. you need to take the time to pray and help everybody, not certain of people. that is so wrong. have a blessed day. by. -- bye. guest: you, too. i agree with you. money should not dictate what this federal government does or how it treats its citizens. the best way for us to take money out of politics is to send less of your precious earnings, what you work so hard for, said less of it to the federal government. too much of it is now concentrated in government. so long as that is the case, you will find there are lots and lots of folks who want to get the ear of the legislature,

president, and influence what the government does. so the less we take from you, the less we involve ourselves and the less the federal government involves itself in your life, in what should properly belong to you in what the constitution said should belong to you, the more we respect the principle, the less you will find there is an influence of big money on these kinds of process these. i certainly resist that, and i am one person. we need all of us together to think about how we make that happen, and how we make the federal government the right size to serve as, but not so big that it takes from us and sits on our economy like a stone. host: we want to remind our viewers that the house will be voting today to disapprove of raising the debt ceiling. will you be coming to the debt

floor to speak on this? guest: i may speak on it. i certainly support the principle that we should not be accumulating for their debt, and that is the idea of the disapproval vote. in hoshost: would you call it a symbolic vote? guest: it is a vote of principle, if you will. i am one of those that feel realistically we have to raise the debt ceiling. i wish that were not the case, but the way we're sure that we will face the minimal task of that sort in the future is by doing that very difficult work of controlling the size and scope of the federal government. host: think you for your time this morning. we're going to talk to the other side of the aisle. we're going to talk to michael capuano coming up next. the last 45 minutes we want to turn our attention to 2012 politics. here is a headline from "time"

magazine. we will talk about the issue in our last hour. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> more on president of politics at this hour. gov. chris christie in remarks earlier says mitt romney should release his tax returns immediately instead of waiting until april, adding it is always better to have full disclosure. he went on to say he wants to remain as governor of new jersey, but would not rule out joining a mitt romney ticket. the former governor of alaska tells fox news if she lived in south carolina, she would vote for newt gingrich in the state presidential primary, adding the state primary candidates are improving as the candidates -- as the primaries continue. ahead of saturday's first in the self primary, the candidates are campaigning throughout south carolina. newt gingrich has event planned in greenbelt.

mitt romney will be on the campus of wofford in spartanburg. here remarks live on c-span radio. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary, spans road to the widest coverage takes you live to the campaign event all this week. -- cpsan's road to the white house coverage take to lead to the campaign event all this week. >> we have brought to the forefront. others have token we talked about it in office, and they do nothing about it, but right now it is this liberty movement, which is seen as a patriotic movement that is saying to the country into the world, we have had enough of sending our kids in money around the world to be

the policeman of the world. it is time to bring them home. >> as kidded its get their message out -- candidates get their message out, meeting the voters. >> thank you so much. >> absolutely not. >> we feel very good about that. >> we feel the conservatives are coalescing around the campaign. find a more video from the campaign trail at our website. >> some will say we are reactionary. others will say we stand for socialism. there will be the inevitable price. it is time for a change and so on and so on. we will hear all those things and many more besides, but we will hear nothing that we've not

heard before. >> we look back of 14 men who ran for the office and lost. good website at c- span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders that had a lasting effect on politics. >> let our opponents stand on the stage of status quo while we seek to refresh the american spirit. [applause] >> let opposition collected $10 million in secret money from the privileged few, and let us find 1 million ordinary americans who will contribute $25 each to this campaign. 1 million member club with members who will not expect special favors for themselves, but a better land for us all. [applause] "washington journal" continues.

host: we're back with michael capuano. thank you for being here. i want to start -- with where we left off with congress moment and that is disagreeing to raise the debt ceiling. guest: it is unfortunate larry a necessary evil. -- unfortunately a necessary evil. host: how do you vote on something like today's issue on this agreed to disagree? guest: bottom line, i will vote to allow the debt ceiling to increase, and not because i like it or think it is the right answer. it is the necessary answer until we get other issues control. host: let's talk about the

perils extension debate. countries will get together -- they will get together and debate. you will now extend this for the full year. according to the new york times, there are three sticking points that have emerged. republicans want to extend for one more year the president's two-year freeze on civilian and federal salaries. the president has said he would like a 0.5% pay increase. what you think of that issue alone? guest: i think it is ridiculous to say the federal employees should take the brunt of the problem. to have a broad stroke that all of them should be treated the exact same and be treated as if they're not worth anything i think is personally insulting to anyone who would ever even consider working for the federal

government. host: what do you think? do you think democrats, crie compromise on that in the end? guest: i do not know. my staff will probably go a second year without a pay raise. that is understandable. that is happening in the real world. to say the president and his administration or on capable or about to go out and throw money away is insulting. that tells me there will be some federal employees who fall in that category. i am sure, not at c-span. ievery group has about players and every group has very good players. most groups have good workers that deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully based on what they do. not just a broad brush political

statement. host: republicans also want working poor taxpayers to want the time it -- child tax credit to provide the social security numbers and the idea that would save 9.4 billion. republicans say filers for the earned income tax credit are reprisals as security numbers but hispanic leaders are saying the credit is for children, not their parents who may be illegal immigrants. and guest: that is the first time i have heard that particular sticking point. the concept of providing your social security tax number on it already. at the same time it is amazing that republicans are also the one thing let's cut back on irs auditing. it is like with a minute, you only want to audit certain people.

my idea is everyone should pay a fair amount of taxes. no one should get anything more or anything less. host: republicans have also proposed cutting back the 99 weeks back to the 59 weeks. mr. obama is willing to trim the duration to 79 weeks. would you agree to that? guest: i would consider it. i would like to see it tied to a particular region. my region has a relatively low unemployment rate compared to the rest of the nation. we would be impacted the matter what. to me, and the climate is something that moves. i do not know anyone that enjoys . ing unemployed purita conceptually i do not a problem with it, but i would like to see more details involved. host: let me get reaction to the front page of "the hill" paper--

guest: i am not like any of the budgets he has had come so what is new? i expect the budget debate this year to be very difficult. it is a political idea. we all know there is a presidential campaign going on. the republicans in the house will probably ignore it totally anyway, so it will become a political statement by the president, and then there will be arguments. it will be a typically confusing and difficult time. host: occupy wall street people are not doing occupy congress. have you seen their presence, and what do you make of it? guest: i was told by one person who dropped by my office yesterday. i have been supportive of the concept of the movement, not the details. i have been supportive because i supported the tea party movement.

i like the idea of americans getting off the couch and getting involved. whether i agree with them or their tactics or not is secondary to me. i think everyone has an obligation to be involved in this society. host: there was also this had led the the newspaper. are you distancing yourself from it? -- there was also this headline in the newspaper. guest: when i see several hundred thousand people from the country getting out of their house and getting involved, that is a good thing. again, i disagree with what most of the tea party says, but i agree with the effect of the came to washington and got involved politically. my hope is that occupy people understand protesting is the beginning, not an end to itself. host: people are already calling in to talk to you. we also have students. the c-span bus is visiting

wofford college. a government students will participate in our conversation here. the college was established in 1854 as an independent liberal arts college and over 1500 students attended. we want to get a special thanks to was prepared the students for their questioning. a special thanks to charter communications who sponsored the bus today. mayor ronnie will go to the college later today for an event, and we will cover that. -- mitt romney will go to the college later today for an event, and we will cover that. let me go to the first did it. good morning, dennis. go ahead. caller: first, i would like to know if anybody in the house of representatives and the senate

has any common sense. i was a comptroller of a fortune 500 company, very large, in charge of $600 billion. i've balanced the budget for 12 years. for 12 years it took a lot of tough decisions, and i did not wait 10 years to do it. now, do you people know the severity of not getting our debt decreased sooner than 10 years? i get the treasury publications. i go through them. i can consolidate, eliminate so many programs, but the people go with them, because that is what happens in business. guest: common sense, you will

have to make that judgment yourself. i think some do and some cannot. as far as the budget, that is the big debate. it is easy to say until you understand there are faces and everyone of these programs. i come from a similar area, and i will tell you i have no farms that i know of. but yet i understand farmers are real people and cannot just throw them out. that is just one example. i of people who need housing subsidies, and we all do. every time you touch your program you are touching real people. i think if you're not in the public light and do not deal with the people on a day-to-day basis, they are just numbers. numbers are easy to balance. it is people's lives that are difficult to deal with. host: a student next. go ahead with your question. caller: what proposals are on

the table about combating the increasing well -- gap between the wealthy and increasing middle-class? guest: if there is lots of proposals, and lots of people have different ideas on how to do this. i believe in a progressive income tax. i believe we have to participate in it. i represent 34 colleges and universities. i believe education is the future of this country. i believe that with all of my heart and soul. to make college more affordable -- less affordable to anyone your age and anyone in america is bad for america. that is as one example. we have different ideas on how to save and improve the middle class. different ways to do it. i think government policies can and should be part of that proposal. many think the government proposal should have nothing to do with anybody state today life, and that is the bottom

line debate. host: democrats in cleveland, ohio. caller: my comment is partly about the tea baggers. they are led by the wealthiest one percent signed, and the rest are followers. and-- lead by the wealthiest 1%. there's only one way to bring this country back, and that is manufacturing goods here. the only way we will keep manufacturing goods here is to bring back tariffs. tariffs ran this country without taxes for 160 years. now, since they took the tariffs away with all of the free trade agreements, you see the mess we are in? guest: i have only voted for to trade agreements. one with australia and one is

with vietnam. vietnam was of bases where i thought we owed it to them based on what we've done in the past, and a good balance to chinese car economic situation. other than that, i agree with you. i think our trade policy has been horrendous. i am not against trade. i believe we've done it on an equal footing. as far as the two-party goes, but i disagree with most of what i hear. -- as far thas the tea party goes, i disagree with most of what i hear. i think more people should get off the couch in disagree with them. a democracy requires people. i think people get involved and can disagree with them on the substance, but i want to respect them, and i do. the: let's go back to

student questions. it is part of our road to the white house segment. brian mccracken is next. caller: historically the national debt has been paid off through increased taxes. what do you say to claims that the payroll tax holiday actually adds billions of dollars to our national debt, and hurts future borrowing power in social security as well? guest: i think you were 100 percent right. i have voted for it in the past as a temporary measure. there is an argument for the short-term that it does increase borrowing. in the short -- long-term, you are right it depends on what is in the bill. it depends what options are. the options and a six-month extension, in my opinion, was horrendous. -- i am sorry, a two-month extension. i find it to be absolutely

crazy. i did it because of the short- term i am hoping to come up with the better solution. i get to vote on is it a little bit better or a little bit worse. in this case i thought was better to continue the debate. i am not at all convinced i will do it again, and for the exact reasons you just mentioned. i believe we have to get over the fact that none of us like a taxes. none of us do. it is not a record to change. if we want a civilized society, we have to understand some degree of taxation is important. host: if the deal is an extension to a full year, should it stop after that? no more than a year? guest: i do not know why we need more than a year. much of it depends on how to pay

for it. we're talking about a few things on how their board to pay for it, but there are more things to it as well. federal employees seem to be the latest whipping board. it depends on what they do. host: great republican in ohio. -- craig, are republican and ohio. caller: i think a fair tax is a progressive tax because of the rebates in it for people better in the poverty level of their different families. so my question to you is, would you support the fair tax? i would urge the college students to research that their tax and see exactly how it would work -- the fair tax and how it would work. also, you would cut the irs and the bloated federal government

and help reduce the cost of government so we do not to worry about the debt ceiling. guest: i do not know enough about that specific proposal. i would be happy to look at it. i have to read the bill to understand it more fully. it is a flat tax, i would not support it. i will look at it and read it. host: jackson, independent. in minnesota, is that right? caller: that is correct. good morning. i see someone else has addressed the issue i was born to talk about, the extension of the payroll tax holiday. i tend to be to the left of center, although i did not vote for obama.

i think this tax holiday is a that idea, and to be pushed by the party that is supposed to represent our -- as peasants is a problem. here is a problem, whatever way it is going to be paid for, it is not going to be paid for by the beneficiary. there is a famous quote by roosevelt, and do not cut me off until i asked my question, it says "we put the fica tax contribution in there so there is a direct tie between the beneficiary and the tax, so that no damage politician can ever destroy my program. what you're doing is shifting this over to the general fund,

and the general fund is not tied to the deficit. host: we got your point. we need to get students in, so ask your question. caller: i was a self-employed person. i paid both ends of the tax cut. the person who is getting the benefits of this is the beneficiary who is being excused from 2% of the payment. is it fair to me as a person who put in both sides of that to have this beneficiary -- by the way, there is a second question to this. host: i have to get more voices in. guest: i can tell you you raise a good point, and i have very serious doubts about it. you are not seeing the other part of the equation, we do

have a difficult economic situation, and we have to find ways to stimulate that. if it was not for that, i would never voted for this proposal. the only thing that would allow me to consider voting for it is an attempt to put more money in the pockets of average people in the hopes they go out in stimulate the economy. i have very serious steps about this. they are not new doubts. you seem convinced of it, and maybe you are right. i have the exact same questions you have. host: the 2012 bus is chanel cliburn. go ahead. caller: given the failure of the super committee to pass the budget reform, how hopeful should the american public be that congress will be able to pass any significant economic reform by november? guest: i think it is going to be very difficult. i told mike constituents at home

to not expect any meaningful legislation this year. i do not agree or disagree with someone just because they have a deal or of our the have their name. -- have a d or r behind their name. i do not think that is really why the failure happened at the super committee. there were basic differences of opinion as to the future of the country, and those decisions will eventually be made by the american people what they elect enough people on one side of the equation or another to leave the country forward. as long as they continue to elect divided government, we will have a very difficult time reaching a conclusion. i did not come to washington with the sole purpose of this agreeing with everything on the table. i came to washington to make compromises. host: rick, a republican in fairfax city, virginia.

caller: a effective tax rate for the top 2% side, which i am not in, the federal is about 28 percent said according to cbo. the state and local have pre police police said 12. -- had previously said 12. that is 34 combined. did you have the indirect clauses on top of that, which are universal, 22, according to government data. those universally occur as well because wealthier people are dealing with the court system or so. that is probably like 27 for them. you would add that to the 34, so this is using the across government methodology. so they're actually paying about 61% total on in come, so is there any room to add to

increase their taxes? guest: those numbers are wrong. i am a former tax lawyer. i understand the numbers reasonably well. my wife is a cpa. i would say that would pit 61% of the gross rate. on marginal rate is what you pay on taxable income. 20 percent signed may or may not be reasonable. a tax on income is closer to 20 percent signed. there is no way in this world average american or top 2 percent said pays 61% of their gross income in taxes. i do not know what the numbers are, indeed it you were cited different calculations. each one is individually correct, but there has to be a lot of overlap. i am willing to bet my home on the fact people are dropping 61% of their gross income in taxes. it is just not happening. i do not know what the number is. i would guess it is the 25-30

range, but nowhere near 60%. wofford college wase w established in 1864. our next to that attends there. go ahead with your next question. caller: recently rick perry has stated rhetoric on keeping foreign aid as 0 until a country proves it needs more. furthermore, u.s. foreign aid causes carelessness and corruption within the african government. if you're experiencing -- experienced in working with projects such as the african union on sudan, could repair is rhetoric be beneficial to the united states budget cut in approving the stability of regions in africa? guest: i will tell you my opinion on foreign aid. i believe america has an obligation to the world.

we are world leader, and we should be proud of that. the degree of foreign aid we put out is minimal, and in many ways embarrassing. when it comes to africa in particular, and i say this because there are conflicts people that not just have military conflict but also health care issues of massive proportions. i am proud of the fact that we get involved in cisudan. i think we have an opportunity to continue doing that. to say we're coming home on every level, i would point to be disheartening and selfish personally. yes, there is some that is misappropriated, and when we find it, we stopped it. most of the money is used for a humanitarian aid around gothe world. host: here is a comment on our

twitter page. was that something you could agree to? guest: conceptually, yes. i don't believe corporations are people, and i don't think they should be taxed as people. i believe in income taxes. there is too much money brought in by corporate taxes, so as far as i'm concerned, i would reduce it as much as possible. we need revenue for a civilized society and we need to talk about how to generate revenue and for it to continue a. conceptually, i have no problem with it, but to simply reduce rates and give up revenue that the government and society needs is what decided the question. a business person would only look at revenue as part of their balancing the books. you have to look at both sides of the lectures government.

is a business -- you have to look at both sides of the ledgers. government is a business that does provide benefits. most people tend not to like programs they don't benefit from. host: we go next to elizabeth on board the campaign at 2012 bus. go ahead with your question. >> good morning, representative. the average college tuition is $8,200, while the average private college tuition is $28,500. none of these figures include books, room and board. what can the federal government do to make college more affordable for families in tough economic times? guest: ever present at 34 colleges, universities, almost all of them private. those numbers are very low for

my district. as i said, i believe america has a vested interest in your education. not just you, every single person in your generation. it is good for you, but it is good for us. we need an educated society to continue to be competitive in this world. i would do a lot more to reduce the cost of college education or students across the country. my position on this issue is probably the incredible minority, but i think that if we don't seek college -- we will get back and make it affordable for anybody who wants to go -- i think this country has a difficult future. half a million a different programs at would like to do. -- i have a million different programs that i would like to do. it may be an extreme view by most people's viewpoints, but i am convinced this country will

fail miserably in the next three or four generations unless we encourage our kids to go to school. host: jeff is a democrat in michigan. caller: good morning, representative. i wanted to say that president obama said -- c-spa[unintelligible] did he realize that those other people who vote for him? that is kind of arrogant to me. i am a democrat. let anybody off. [unintelligible] what is going on in washington. we're spending money overseas. we are starting a war over in iran. the president, he knows what's

going on. for him to be threatening me -- i am already fed up with him in the first place. all these wars that we are fighting -- we have people living on $700 a month. he was all that money over there -- wastes all that money over there. i think that is outrageous. guest: again, the president is trying to get reelected. i am a supporter of the president, but that does not mean i agree with everything he does. i been married for 35 years and my wife and i don't agree on everything. political guys in his administration or campaign have decided that the continuation of trying to find this alleged bipartisan, post-partisan approach is the best political tool. i personally think that the

american people for for people who stand up and say, "this is what i believe in, this is what i will fight for. if you agree with me, that is a great. if you disagree, that is okay, we will still moving forward at." fdr -- many americans hated him, but he moved this country forward and i think history will treat him well. history will treat people not as well who come across as trying to please everyone. i respect him, but i have a very clear in viewpoint. i am a supporter of the president, i will vote for him, but i will encourage him to stand up for the viewpoints that we share. host: would you like him to campaign with you for reelection? guest: fine with me. i think i would help him more than he would help me. host: why do you think that? . guest: most congressmen --

host: 84% disapprove of the job congress is doing. the job don't approve congress is doing. put me in that 84%. host: is your district changing? guest: a little bit my district will be 80% of what i currently have. i don't think the general viewpoint of the district will change much. host: what does that mean? the 20%, who are those? guest: i will pick up a few communities to the south of austin, wanted to the north, i will lose a few sections of the district i currently have. i will have a district that is 57% non-white, which i am very proud of. the philosophical viewpoint in general won't change.

host: back to the students on the bus. >> my question is about the debt ceiling. recently, the vote was considered a charade. congressman hoyer said it was a charade intended to delay action. what is your view on that? is that a true characterization of the debt ceiling vote? guest: that is one way to put it. we all knew what the result was going to be. we know what the result is going to be on most votes we take. we don't know what is going to happen the week before. to some degree it was a charade. at the same time, the real rate was -- real charade was the attending come in my opinion, that some people would have reasonable compromise. there was no revenue put on the table of any serious nature.

we said from day one that we needed some degree of revenue. when you have no revenue on the table, only a slashing of the social programs across the board, that is not a thoughtful compromise. it is simply political rhetoric. host: you are serving your seventh term representing the boston area. how does the health care law put into place by the former governor mitt romney work? is it successful, in your mind? guest: it is successful at the moment. most of us who supported it, and it is kind of funny, governor romney doedid not have as much to do with it as he sometimes claims, sometimes it doesn't. so be it. it was an experiment, we knew that going in. we had to tweak it a few times and there are more tweaks that will have to be done. even if 10 years from now we

think it has failed, i am proud of the state of massachusetts for trying it. no law is perfect when written. we cannot possibly know the ramifications of everything we do, especially a law as big and important as that. that is why we go back and amend it, because we did not realize this was going to happen. on the health care debate, the rallying cry was "did you read the bill?" yes, i read the bill several times, but i have read the bible and "moby dick" several times and i don't understand everything in those books. we will have to amend it going forward, and massachusetts has done that a number of times and we will have to do it more times. host: white do you think at the governor gets more credit for

the legislation? guest: no republican governor can sustain a veto. we have too many democrats in the senate. it was driven by the house speaker at the time and the senate president. the governor vetoed portions and his vetoes were overridden. depending on the day, he tried to take credit for it, and now he is trying to run away from it. politicians take credit for things you do, don't take credit for the things you don't to be a pretty good record most times, if you have to have a position on something. you can tell people this is what i did. that is the problem governor romney is having now, is that too many people are not sure exactly where he stands. i don't know where he stands on most of these issues. i don't even know in hindsight where he stood as the governor of massachusetts, because he was for gay marriage, against gay marriage, for the health- care bill, against the health

care bill, for abortion, against abortion. now as the president attended he's just doing more flips -- now as a presidential candidate he is just doing more slips -- host: do you see him as the toughest challenger for president? guest: as i said, i prefer politicians who stand for something and fight for it, even if i disagree with them. ron paul, serving in congress -- i love ron paul. he is a wonderful man, a man of honesty and integrity. i don't agree with him on many issues, but he says what he believes he sticks to it. that is a very good quality, in my opinion. i personally think the american people are logging for someone who does what they say and say what they will do. whenever they get somebody like that, they are more likely to embrace them. most of us are just fed up with people who tell us what ever they think we want to hear, and the problem is we fall for it in many cases.

we can blame them, but we have to look in the mirror and blame ourselves, too, because we fall for it on a regular basis. host: another student from wofford college. >> good morning, congress man. i was fortunate to work with the british government, and i witnessed the trouble they were having in getting that deficit under control. at what point do you feel is necessary for us to make true entitlement reform with welfare and medicare? and that you feel like there is a specific point acrto cross whe congress needs to act specifically to do so? guest: social security, absent the payroll tax we are currently debating, is in pretty decent shape. medicare is not. it is past due to have that debate as to what we want from medicare.

that is something we missed in the health-care debate. i personally, if i were ever of the world, would have taken medicare and expanded over 10 or 20 years to make sure more people would get coverage. it and up more of a single payer system in the final analysis, but medicare and general works but cannot work as long as population demographics change, and we have to take that into recognition. people are living longer, and that is a pretty good thing. i'm getting closer to the end myself, and i think is good we have a longer lifespans. we've not had the very difficult debate as to what kind of health care system we really want. it is easy to say we want health care for all. the question is are we willing to pay for it. in europe, they pay for it. that is a societal decision, but they do. we have not had that debate. we pretend we can do everything for free, and we cannot.

host: indiana. caller: hello, congressmen. guest: hi, how are you? caller: on the keystone pipeline, they are talking about the state department at cornell university both did a study on how many jobs this would create, and came up with a figure of 20,000 or less. our conservative guess is that it would be over 100,000 jobs. it is an export pipeline, though. i have heard that it is supposed to increase energy independence, and i don't quite get that. i am trying to look for answers as to why is this such a hot issue for republicans and democrats, white is even thought about, if it is not increasing energy independence and actually destroying jobs. host: i will have the congressmen respond, but if i could just get in the last student, and then i will have you respond to both.

guest: sure.. host: michael, go ahead. >> as a concern to senior at wofford college, i understand the value of being able to access information on the internet, in particular wikipedia. i know wikipedia has been discredited at times as illegitimate, but on more than one occasion i have used wikipedia to cite different texts within the article. the stop online privacy act, as well as the protect ip act, would stop me being able to access this web sites. what do you plan to do as far as the vote? guest: sopa is the one i am most familiar with. protection of intellectual property is very important in this country. i want to go back to the earlier question on a trade. i believe that many of the trade

agreements is why intellectual property is struggling. i don't like the way that soapy pa would enforce the laws, basically to shut down web sites. that is a massive overreach. i am not used to the technology so i have limited understanding on how to do it, but this is not the way to do it. we have to find ways to protect intellectual property, but not this particular bill. as to the keystone pipeline, there is disagreement on what it would do. the energy is going to go somewhere. it comes from canada. we have to make the decision, but it tends to bring down -- all for something or against something. one side is all for the

pipeline, it doesn't matter about the environment. the other side is all for the environment, no matter what the costs on the side. this is where i would like to see the president more involved. there is plenty of great area where there should be something that i won't say is easy, but reasonably expected to be compromised. i don't know if that is going to happen. host: i want to thank the students at wofford college in south carolina at for joining us on at the bus this morning. we appreciate that. and thank you for preparing the students for the program, and charter communications, who helped sponsor today's event. thank you to all of them, and thank you to the congressman -- guest: thank you to the students as well. always tough. host: good questions. we turn to our spotlight on the magazine's series, and this

week's article is on super pacs. a news update from c-span radio. >> the producer price index, which measures price changes before they reach consumers, declined 0.1% in december, following up 0.3% rise the previous month, and the first drop since october. wholesale prices dropped last month because companies paid less for food and energy. evidence, according to this report, that inflation remains tame. that ald bank is warminwarning global economic growth could slump this year. it has cut its forecast for developing countries to 5.4%, down from 6.2%. it is urging those countries to prepare for talks that could be more severe than at the 2008 crisis. the bank says that conditions could worsen if more european countries are not able to raise money in financial markets. some news on education policy -- local schools, and not just

states, will be able to compete in the obama administration's race to the top education competition. education secretary arne duncan will appear at a u.s. conference of mayors today to encourage mares to get local schools to participate. c-span is covering the conference, and you can hear some of it live on c-span radio following "washington journal." those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio >> only those who have shown the resolve to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard it added it challenging turbulence and unpredictable times that lie ahead. [applause] mr. president, the decade and a century must see the lasting triumph of liberty, our common cause. the world needs britain, and

britain needs us. >> named "the iron lady," margaret thatcher is currently being portrayed on screen by meryl streep. watch the real iron lady online at the c-span video library. >> there are some countries in the markets that would like to pan over some of their financial affairs to a european central bank, and i guess there parliaments and much of their powers. that is not our view. we do not wish to hand over for their powers from this parliament to other bodies. >> what you want, when you want. "washington journal" continues. host: every wednesday on "washington journal" in the last hour we are doing our spotlight on magazines, spotlighting a magazine article he may not have heard about.

the most recent edition of "time" magazine, with warren buffett on its cover -- inside is a piece written by michael scherer called "attack of the super pacs." what is a super pac? guest: my 6-year-old is excited about super pacs because it has "super" in the title." host: right. [laughter] guest: groups that get together to spend money and influence elections. their work court decisions, one by the supreme court, won by the district courts, that change the rules of campaign finance. super pacs is not a technical term -- host: just a beefed up pac? guest: 8 is able to do things that pacs used to not be able to

do. the supreme court ruled in a landmark case that spending on limited sources of money to influence elections, especially right before elections, could be regulated by congress. what that meant is that if he wanted to buy at before an election to select or defeat so and so, you had to raise money in small increments. no contribution over $500,000, recently paid 2010 changed the rules, and you can go out and bu and raise money in unlimited amounts. you have wealthy people, and you can have a very wealthy corporations, while the unions, come in even at the last minute with the checks in the range of several hundred thousand dollars to millions of dollars at purchase large amounts of television time right before an election to influence the outcome.

the vehicle by which this is happening are these so-called super pacs. host: do pacs still exist, then? guest: a super pac is the type of pac. you don't need to have the same -- the red tape is considerably reduced. the thing that held back pacs is that a typical pac would be a large company or union, and they would go to individuals in the company and asked for contributions of a couple thousand dollars a year and they would pool that money. now the company can just write a check out of its treasury to spend money on actions, or one employee, the ceo, can write a check for $5 million. you don't need the same pooling of resources, and the amount of money you have to play with is unlimited. host: are there any rules for the super pac? guest: there are, and this is

where it gets interesting. there remain rules in place that bar what illegally is called coordination between the super pac and a campaign. each of the candidates and the republican primary, and obama will have one in the general election, have a pac that is solely dedicated to getting the canada elected. -- the candidate elected. romney has a pac, newt gingrich has a pac. in most cases, the pacs are run by former staff and close friends of the candidates, but legally, they are prohibited from taking direct advice about how to spend the money from the candidate or the campaign. when a they purchase tv ad time, they are not allowed to directly communicate with them. those rules look nice on paper, but in practice, they don't seem to me quite as much as if they

do on paper. the candidates can still appear at fund-raisers for these pacs, give endorsements to the pacs, if you give the money to the pac, it is like giving money to me -- they don't say that explicitly, but that is the message they send. they can model everything they do on the candidate's public strategy. even if mitt romney is that privately communicating with his pac about where they place their ads or whether they attacked newt gingrich or rick santorum, it is clear from the romney campaign what the strategy is at the people running the pac mirror that strategy. there is sort of a practice where because you have basically friends of the candidate, funded by friends of the candidate, advertising on behalf of the candidate, the candidate has a veto power in practice. if the candidate comes out publicly and says "this ad is despicable, i want them to take

it down right away," there is a long tradition of them taking it down. there is effective control over the cpacs by the candidates. host: family and friends are running these pacs, benefiting from them themselves? guest: the main reason they do it is because they are longtime staffers, people devoted part of their professional lives to these candidates. in the case of the obama pac, you have bill burton, a staffer for the campaign. in the case of the rodney pac, you have his former campaign treasurer and lawyer from the 2008 campaign. with the newt gingrich pac, you have his longtime spokesman. these are people whose professional identities and personal desires line up almost perfectly with the candidate. that is why they are getting money. if you are a donor who wants to support romney argued gingrich,

you go to a guy that you know the candidate has tested in the past. host: how much money are we talking about, how they spend so far, and what is the prediction of how much will be spent? guest: we don't know. it is all very fluid. millions of dollars of ads right now. a week ago, almost $40 million had been spent on television, broadcast ads. it has no doubt got up a few million because of the south carolina ads. not all that is super pacs, but in a lot of the key content, the super pacs have been outspending the candidate campaigns. you see on that chart at there, in iowa, where the most money has been spent so far, mitt romney's super pac came in and blistered the airwaves with tough attacks on newt gingrich,

and in which's polls drop considerably. -- gingrich's polls dropped considerably. host: we are talking with michael scherer. he wrote his recent article in "time" magazine, "attack of the super pacs." remember, you can send aus a tweet -- @cspanwj is the handle -- or our facebook page. mitt romney says of course there are staffers serving on mike pac, and of course i raise money for them, but at the debate, he said. but it was like to get rid of them -- he said that everybody

would like to get rid of them. guest: mitt romney has tended to make flubs on the campaign trail, and he has made mistakes -- he said in an interview that he would raise money for them. tactically, he is not allowed to raise money for them, but the rules are so weak that you can show up at the event, give a speech, stand next to the guy who tactically raises the money -- who technically raises the money paid by law, romney is barred from making that ask. one of the things that is most controversial about super pacs -- in the citizens united case, the supreme court said that they concluded, the majority had concluded that independent expenditures from corporations or individuals, because they are independent, did not give rise to either corruption or the appearance of corruption.

because the coordination rules were in effect, there was not enough of the government interest or public interest in restricting first amendment rights. it is the coordination rules are sort of only on paper and not in reality, the supreme court ruling. you have a situation where the candidates themselves are saying to each other at a press, and the press is basically saying it thatll, that the cpac's -- these pac's are basically outgrowths of the campaign paid people running the pacs will tell you that everything i do is for the kennedy and i am taking my cues from the candidate -- not private cues, but public cues. host: let's listen to what

governor romney had to say at the debate monday night in myrtle beach, south carolina. [video clip] >> we all would like to have a super pacs disappear, to tell you the truth. what a nice if campaigns could run their own ads and take responsibility for them? mccain-feingold is a disaster. get rid of it, let people make contributions to they want to make, let campaigns take responsibility for their own words, and not have this strange situation where we have people who support us and run ads we don't like, we want to take them off the air, and by law will not allowed to talk to them. i have not spoken to any of the people involved in my super pac for months. this is outrageous. candidates it should have the responsibility and the right to manageads run on their behalf.

guest: i thought it was a remarkable answer. what romney is arguing for is because the supreme court has listened to these rules, let's go the way -- has loosened these way., let's go all the let's drop the pretense and allow unlimited contributions and let campaigns take responsibility for it. he refers to ads he doesn't like and want to take it off the air. what is notable that that is that he has said, and other candidates have said repeatedly, that they don't want any inaccuracies run by the super pac, but romney has pointedly on a number of occasions refused to call on his super pac to take down ads. "of course, i don't want anything inaccurate to be used in these ads," but he won't take down the ad. there is a clear indication that if he says that, the people running this work back --

running the super pac will be shamed by the candidate into doing what the candidate wants. host: "letting candidates except the big checks themselves would be even worse than the current mess." "tightened rules could prevent the wink-and-nod between candidates and a super pacs." robert in ohio. caller: years ago, the union's basically started the super pacs, and if they had to collect money from their membership by selling -- the committee or something would cost $1 a year. we had a lot of members and could raise it a bit of money. all of a sudden, they clamped

down on them. my question is what changed? our membership dropped drastically. we don't have the money. there are no really rich unions. but the corporations are extremely wealthy. all of a sudden it changed and they are like citizens. i don't believe that. host: michael scherer? guest: unions have enormous influence on politics and spend a lot of money. year after years, the biggest funders of independent campaign ads for democrats, and if they are major donors to democrats. the thing about these super pacs so far at least is that we have not seen the fortune 500 corporations writing big checks, the big corporate interests writing checks. we do see corporations making large donations, usually shelf wan -- shell-front corp. for individuals.

they're set up for tax purposes, writes the check, provides them distance and legal protection. unions still play a role in politics, the difference is that you have the ability to spend the money immediately before an election and directly influenced the outcome of the election. host: are unions on board? are they creating their own super pacs? guest: it is assumed that unions will be giving to some of the democratic setbacks. there is a disclosure issue, that because the fec is one of these regulatory bodies that has a long history of not being tough as a regulator or really caught in its regulation, it has written the rules in a way that most of the super pac money being raised and spent right now through the early primary contests in florida and south carolina, iowa, new hampshire, those super pacs will have to disclose until --.

won't have to disclose until january or february. that could be easily changed. the day the super pac cashes the check, they have to put it on my enemy could have immediate disclosure. -- they could put it on line and we could have immediate disclosure. host: tom, go ahead. caller: jpmorgan and the super pac for mitt romney is the same thing. same old thing. a ron paul-type funding person -- these politicians are the same. we want to get somebody like ron paul in there. why are we so afraid of his foreign policy? host: tom -- i mean, ron paul has a super pac, doesn't he? guest: most of this spending does not come through super

pacs. ron paul, much like barack obama in 2008, has been remarkably effective at raising small dollars from lots of people, like the caller said. newt gingrich, coming out of iowa, where he performed poorly, and new hampshire, where he did not perform well, would be struggling going to south carolina, because you don't have the momentum to raise the money and the $2,500 checks from supporters. but he had a wealthy friend, a casino magnate in las vegas who was able to come forward and write a $5 million check, which immediately solve that problem. in the past, money has tended to come with the candidates who can get large numbers of people to give the smaller donations. now if you have just a few wealthy friends, you can counteract that pretty easily. host: winning our future is the super pac for newt gingrich.

and when to give our viewers an idea of the super pac ads -- newt gingrich is the only one that can beat obama is the theme of thisad. [video clip] >> newt gingrich led the republican revolution, winning the majority in congress for the first time in 40 years. he passed the first balanced budget in a generation. he cut over $400 billion in debt, all like rid -- all while cutting taxes and creating new jobs. he is the only proven conservative leader who can a beat obama. newt gingrich, he is the only one. host: we have been talking about these super pacs running ads against their opponents. this one was for their guy. guest: most have been negative, but some have been positive. if you are watching "wheel of

fortune" with the nightly news, you'll probably it not notice it is not the campaign. that is the world we live in. host: winston-salem, go ahead. caller: good morning, greta, good morning, michael. kudos to c-span. when i was watching that segment you had on "the contenders," they had rested on a george mcgovern, and it talks about the nixon campaign, rich guys, let them go ahead an average folks today and have hundreds of millions of dollars, and something to the effect of we would rather have 1 million people donate $25, etc. the other thing to come out of "the contenders" is that when a television became a really big deal, moving from truman and

eisenhower, eisenhower to kennedy, the kennedy-nixon debate -- when television took over, the media took over, that is one of the move to raise dollars increase. beyond whether it is a democrat or republican, just to reach more people, to reach the demographics and off, and if you add in cable and internet people can look at stuff on phones and things like that, people have the need for large dollars, whether it is rich people or little folks. i can see the logic behind the super pac. host: all right, the correlation there. guest: it is definitely true that television still dominates our political process, even though internet advertising is coming up, social media. you still invest most of your money in television. there is a long history with campaign finance regulations. teddy roosevelt was the first president to push for regulation of campaign finance.

he banned corporate contributions to campaigns. you add additional bands on unions giving money and other groups to campaigns. it was after mcgovern, after watergate, and the scandal of watergate, that congress said we really have to deal with this. they first put in place these limitations on how much you could give to campaigns. that is the world we have been living in from the late 1970's until 2010, where we are entering this new era. host: the caller referring to george mcgovern, part of our "contenders" service, looking at those who ran for president, lost, but changed history. go to c-span.org and find all the different contenders we focused on, george mcgovern b and one, al smith, etc. you can watch it on our website. jim is a democrat in st. louis, missouri.

c-span.i love i'm wondering how in which foreign countries act as a super pacs, and whether they do it as a sovereign entity, or if they do it through multinational corporations. as an example, i can see how every opec nation would like to keep us dependent on foreign oil. guest: there remain limitations on foreign contributions to campaigns that are tightly regulated. but when you bring in the issue of corporations being able to give, corporations span international borders and it becomes more complicated. we have not seen in this cycle any situation where foreign interests seem to be involved in giving. most of the giving to the super pacs has clearly been friends of the candidate, wealthy people involved in politics for a long time who are american citizens.

the president has raised this also in talking about the supreme court ruling, which he vehemently disagrees with, saying it could open the door to foreign contributions. we just have not seen that happen yet. host: will the president have a super pacs? guest: the president does have a super pac that has been set up by bill burton, is former -- a former spokesperson at the white house who is a spokesperson on his campaign. it is an interesting question of how big it will be. in the past, obama has been clear that he does not like un limited money and does not want it involved in the process. he actually attacked john edwards for not denouncing an independent campaign that was spending on his behalf in iowa. so far, is clear that president obama will not appear at events for this group, he is not going to give the wink and the nod, or at least he has not yet. but there is grumbling in the

obama world, having seen the power of romney's pac and what it is able to do in iowa. there is a real discussion going on about how much do we have to play this game going into the general election. what is interesting about this discussion is that so far, it has not raised a lot of money, but it does not have to now because of the way the rules are written, the five million-dollar check, $10 million check can come in at the last minute before the ad goes on the air. my guess is that you will see something like that. it may not be like what the romney super pac is, because the obama campaign will have more money to spend on its own. the other thing, the house and senate have their own super pac efforts they are working on. it is not just a presidential campaign thing. all sorts of elections are involved.

host: "usa today" -- "romney leads in super pac spending. the group that supports romney has put more than $8.1 million into tv ads and mailers. a pro-gingrich group has spent slightly more than $4 million in the campaign." here is a tweet. mike, independent in pensacola, florida. caller: good morning, greta. one question, if i may. i am interested in that last debate, and it was not shown on this station. i just wondered, is it possible you could show it again on c- span? host: what are you talking about, our debate with the members of congress, our conversation with them? caller: the last debate of the candidates -- host: oh, the last debate, i

see, in myrtle beach, south carolina. i am not sure if we have the rights to reair that -- probably unlikely. if you go to our website, c- span.org, you can look at what we have covered in our archives. guest: you can probably find it online, too. host: yes, you can find it online. caller: my comment with the pacs -- to me, it is the most glaring example of what is wrong with our country right now. it is so obvious that it is a way for big money to buy candidates. i cannot imagine how this could have happened. that is my comment. host: we will let that stand as a comment. jan is a republican in arizona. do you have a question?

caller: i would like to talk to the gentleman from "time" magazine. you talk about this pax. -- the super pacs. when you give money to the campaign, you also give it to the super pacs. did you talk about that? the reason this all started was because of the unions. all that money that goes into campaigns on at the union's, the unions said in the white house with president obama. did you do an article on the unions? i'm so sick of hearing about romney's money. did you do articles on the kennedys' money, camelots? how wonderful that they had all this money. romney has a squeaky clean background. newt gingrich is talking about family. the reason he wants kids to go out and work -- maybe some of these rich kids should get off their butts and work.

i am tired of hearing a gingrich saying that poor kids should get up and work. he makes me sick to my stomach. host: the question about "time" magazine and what you cover. guest: the reason i wrote this story is that super pacs and the way they are changing politics is a newsworthy event. it has changed the way it race is run. you do have a point about vice president joe biden. the president has made it clear he will not appear at fund- raisers. there was an incident where the vice president spoke to donors, and later that day there was a solicitation for the pac. i would not be surprised if you see more of that happening going into the general election. i am not sure whether super pacs at the end of the day will be something that republicans love and democrats take or democrats

love and republican state. it is not clear at this point. there is support on both sides of the aisle. at this point, probably obama would prefer a super pacs not be here, because he has the ability to raise small-donor dollars. years from now, you could see that situation reversed and republicans raising more small- donor dollars and the disadvantage by super pacs. i am not sure that super pacs themselves have a partisan bias one way or the other. host: by the way, we did not get the middle beach debate -- myrtle beach debate for reairin purposes. guest: that's a good point. what i said is that we have not seen it yet but we've not seen the disclosures yet for most of the money spent in january. we will see that until the end

of the month. there are still limitations on foreign nationals being directly influence on the political process. it becomes tricky very quickly and in terms of what are these entities -- are they u.s. entities, are a foreign entities? when we see that, it would become a scandal and it could influence future legislation. host: to the super pacs have to disclose who give them the money? guest: yes, they do, but they don't have to disclose in a timely way. the money can be spent, the election can happen, and you get the disclosure only after it is all over. host: charles is next, independent caller bank. >> -- independent caller. caller: what is is the height of a systemic problem, money in politics. when you have politicians whose livelihood depend on getting elected, many of them taking

lobbyists' money and going to work for corporations that take those -- that money. when a politician's livelihood and job is based on getting money from private interests, it thwarts the whole system and kills the idea of the statesman. the super pac thing is just a bad idea, buying political power in the end, period. guest: that rationale is why the supreme court has left in place this idea that you can only give limited amounts of money directly to campaigns, because there is the threat of corruption, or the appearance of corruption. you ask if all the disclosure will come out. there is another loophole that has not played out in the primary but will likely play out in the general, and that is that you can create a 501c4,

political nonprofit, that only spends 49% of its money influencing elections, and because of the supreme court rulings, they don't have to disclose donors. there is this thing in place where it is not as efficient as the super pac, where the interest could spend money to influence elections in a way that would shield them from disclosure. the group they are giving money to would have to be doing something else in addition to spending money on ads. groups supporting obama have set up a 501c4 and will probably be doing this going forward, probably the unions, i would guess, although that is just speculation, who don't want to disclose who they are going into elections. host: another tweet.

guest: i think it is a brilliant bit of satire. for those who are not familiar with steven cole thei -- stephen colbert, the comedy host, several months ago created the colbert super pac. he has not spent much money, but it puts up funny web ads. he had on the show an official trestle of power -- official transfer of power to his friend, jon stewart, to show how weak these rules are, adding trevor potter, a republican lawyer, to describe the issues. jon stewart and stephen colbert our friends and business

partners. jon stewart can raise money to support colbert's supposed candidacy for president of the united states as long as he just watches the show to see what to spend money on. host: sally is a democrat. caller: how did we get this to the supreme court in the first place? usually when you hear supreme court rulings, there is a lot of talk about it, but who brought it to the supreme court? guest: interesting question. the case was called citizens united, and it was a group called citizens united that created a campaign documentary about hillary clinton in 2007. it was a conservative group, they created a documentary are coming at hillary clinton should not be president of the united states, -- arguing that hillary clinton should not be president

of the united states, here are the reasons why. at the time, people thought it violated rules of expenditure, that you cannot directly advocate the support or defeat a candidate. citizens united said we don't think this is right under the constitution, that the first amendment to protect our ability to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate before an election. they took the case to the supreme court, and we have seen in years and shift on the supreme court on the way they approach these issues, partially because of conservative of clemmons to the court. -- conservative appointments to the corporate it for the -- the court -- conservative appointments to the court. it forced the court to revisit aspects of mccain-feingold.

host: sarah, you are on with michael scherer. caller: good morning. i was just thinking that, as a voter, i wish they if they would get all the money out of the politics. i truly believe that democracy -- everything is for sale. politicians are for sale, our leadership is for sale. it really worries me. i would like to see we the people, the people of this great nation, the man no more money in politics -- demand no more money in politics. if we would have one or two tv channels for everyone running for public office, whether it is the president of the united states are congress members, could make their case on why they should be elected at without having to raise any money, i really think the results would be quite different and i really think that we would actually have the people represented in the government. host: let me get vanessa in come

in and in florida. you are probably our last. caller: i actually agree with what the lady just said, but also, the super pacs are talking about individuals themselves about what they can do and what would make them a good president, it is ok hit but when they attacked another opponent, i don't like that. i would not vote for a president who would do that. it is tit for tat, it don't make no sense. they need to look at all this money they spend on super pacs and put it back into the economy. host: michael scherer, if there is any movement in congress to address this attacks -- is there any movement in congress to address the supertax? guest: -- the super pacs? guest: we had a public

financing system that worked pretty well for the general election, where once you won the party nomination, you are given a big check if you kept your spending under a certain amount. barack obama in 2008 was making so much money busted that system, decided he was not going to accept the check. we have gotten to the point where campaigns are so large that there is no law in place and there is not a lot of movement by the federal government to put out the amount of money that would need to be put up. given the supreme court ruling, it would not solve the problem. just because you have a public financing system, it would not prevent outside interests, corporations from spending money, as the court has ruled that this is the first amendment issue and they have a right to speech. if you are saying something that is nice work if you are saying is nice work if you are saying something that is really