online privacy act -- stop online piracy act and the recent shutdown of website in process of the bills start the internet piracy. later, george mason university criminology professor catherine gallagher talk about the money given to states by the federal government to prevent and control juvenile delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: president obama delivers his state of the union address tomorrow night inside that building, the house chambers, 9:00 p.m. eastern time. we will kick off coverage here at 8:00 p.m. on c-span, and following the speech indiana republican governor mitch daniels deliver is the gop response. of course, we will take your phone calls following both of the speeches. two groups are marking the 39th anniversary of roe versus wade today.

march for life holds their annual march and rally and the national organization for women will hold a vigil at the supreme court today. look for our coverage on c- span.org. good morning, this monday morning, january 23. we want to begin with your take on the economy and how your governor is handling it. c-span has been covering many of the state of the state addresses by governors in recent weeks and we will continue to do so, airing a handful tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span2. how is your governor handling the economy?

governor jerry brown sang "rumors of california's demise are greatly exaggerated." starting monday tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2. how is your governor handling the economy in your state? what is it like in your community? let me begin with the money section of "usa today" and their outlook for the economy going forward. the u.s. economy will slow this year after a salary of strong growth in late 2011, leaving the unemployment rate about where it is now on election day.

it says --

that is the prediction, according to a panel of economists "usa today" put together on the economy going forward. how is your governor handling the economy? susan, you are up first. democrat from michigan. caller: i was on independent but the way our governor and republicans and washington are handling thing i will be emphatic and both state democratic. my governor is terrible. it is rick snyder. he raised taxes on the pensions in michigan. anybody drawing a pension now has to pay taxes on it. many people i know, senior citizens, have their heat set at 55 because they cannot afford the heat and the new taxes. he is now prepared to raise the

gas tax by 9 cents, during this economy when people are hurting and cannot pay their bills. he also wants to raise the price to get your car licensed 60%, and he is getting ready probably to find this bill. it is awful. taxing the poor and middle-class and elderly and the way he can. and giving this money to the rich, to the people in business who are going to bring us jobs. we have seen no jobs. host: here is a peace and "the wall street journal" about michigan and other states.

what is your reaction? caller: momma reaction -- my reaction is it is too late. we need jobs now. where i live there are three factories closed. they now produce nothing, they are empty. we need them tomorrow. we need these jobs tomorrow. caller: -- host: what is the budget deficit like? caller: he has got it down now. he has done that. i will give him that. but it is at a cost of schools. there are many school teachers who have cut their pay by i think 10% to 15%. they are now not going to restaurants in town because they cannot afford it. he has hurt small businesses.

host: what is the tax situation like? you talked about some specific -- caller: $900 for every senior citizen who draws a pension. that is the average that i heard on the news the other day. our taxes are going to go up. and we will have to come up with the money because it did not come out of our pensions. so we have to figure out how we will get the $900 to pay it. because we do not have it. it is just wrong. yes, a handstand, but it is just wrong to attack the vulnerable, the elderly, and the poor. host: another maurice -- another voice in here. mark, independent. what you think about o'malley's budget? caller: i would give him a d-as a letter. he proposed raising a state sales tax to 7%. the second to raise that if the

general assembly approves it. he has done nothing to promote any job growth or any opportunities in this state since he has been in office. this is his second term. he is a lame-duck governor. he has done nothing to significantly reduce the state spending levels. in fact, he proposed increase spending for a state police. he also proposed transferring pence -- transferring pension obligations back to counties which are cash strapped to do to decreases in tax revenues because of the housing crisis. i just do not think our governor has done enough to bring state spending under control and that overall he is not doing a very effective job. host: this is the metro section of "the washington times" this morning. income-tax hikes on top 20% of wage earners and increases in the states regard tax. caller: i cannot necessarily have a problem with that but what the paper is not reporting is as other tax increases.

in terms of user fees, registration -- cost for registering your car. we have emissions testing in some of our counties throughout the state. he proposed those increases as well. with people already struggling to make ends meet. i just cannot think he has done an overall good job and looking at reducing spending, such as our former governor, governor schaefer did, in difficult times. host: what is your reaction to "the baltimore sun" frontpage, o'malley taking scrutiny as he serves two roles. he had cut the democratic governors association. this article talking about a busy schedule. he will give his state of the state address in february and also serving as the head of dga. caller: i think he had his eyes set on another prize -- either probably looking at becoming our senator or maybe even a run for the white house.

i do not think his focus is really on the state of maryland right now there i am just over all disappointed. host: buffalo, missouri. steve, democrat. caller: good morning, greta. first time i talked to you. host: welcome to the conversation. what do you think of your governor? caller: i think he is doing pretty good. he did the state of the state address the other night. and he is bringing in jobs, he is working with people to bring in parts to build. i think they will get another ford plant or something. working in southwest missouri -- and all over missouri. he balanced the budget without raising taxes. if the budget goes through. and he did it without cutting aid to parents with autistic children, because they got that

through a few years ago. my daughter testified in jefferson city on that. her and a lot of their mothers because my grandson is autistic. doing well. some cuts i do not like. a little bit to education stuff. but i think all states are having to do that. host: having to make cuts and increased taxes? caller: i do not know about increasing taxes. nixon is not increasing taxes in missouri. i am c-span junkie. i watched south carolina. nikki haley was talking about -- they have high unemployment down there.

i do not believe employment is altogether a presidential situation, but i think it is gubernatorial. host: what is your unemployment in missouri? caller: it is down around eight but it is getting better all the time. i see things going on, you know -- around springfield they put in new highways and so forth. everybody said the stimulus did not work. they are totally long. host: the new york times" had this headline back on the 18th -- i want to say what the governor had to say. >> in my budget i will fulfill a promise i made all the people of majority in 2009 -- real relief from the heavy personal income tax burden that strength of our families and forced many to move away. i propose to reducing tax rates

for each and every new jerseyan in every tax bracket by 10% across the board. [applause] to fully restore the earned income tax credit for the working poor, which we were forced to cut during the dark days of 2010 when growth was gone and we had no money. understand this means, every new jerseyan will get a cut in taxes. host: this is "the star ledger" after the governor gave the speech.

go to c-span.org if you want to see the speech in entirety. and we are airing this a state of the state address tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern time and we will continue to air them as we bring them in. republican from pittsburg, kansas. caller: the same thing is happening in kansas with the governor here. i do not know when they met together in washington and agreed on all of this, but the

democrats and republican governors seem to be doing the same thing. they are all cutting taxes for the wealthy and piling it on the poor people. i remember in 2001 when the senator here in kansas wanted to gerrymander a piece of land going clear across boreholes state so that bill grays could be getting his trucking business across the whole state. they are still at it. and he has been convicted of fraud, with his campaign finance business. and he had to pay it back.

and the piece of land he wanted to gerrymander went clear over to district two where jim o'brien was at the time and the bill graves wanted to be secretary of transportation but too many calls were made to the president's and said, no, we put that down. and we have put some other things down. and now we need to put down senator umbarger and we need to put down the governor to understand -- we need jobs, jobs, jobs here. host: front page of "the wall street journal" has this headline. gingrich reshapes the landscape. all four candidates now say they

will plow on past the florida primary. that is "the wall street journal." and the schedule for the 2012 campaign -- the gop primary race. here is what it looks like. there will be a debate tonight at the university of south florida in tampa. gop presidents of the big hosted by cnn and the republican party of florida. florida primary tuesday, january 31. and after florida -- nevada caucuses february 4, tuesday, february 7, colorado, minnesota, and the missouri primary. speaking of florida, "in do you -- in "the washington post" take note of jeb bush and senator more rubio, they have not taken a side in the contest and won their rumors saturday that jeb bush might be moving toward an

endorsement he quickly and reiterated in an interview with al hunt that he would remain neutral. that is the latest on florida. more and the papers this morning about the state of florida. a column in "the washington post" has a breakdown of what florida looks like. a massive state, he says in this column. 1.9 million republicans voted in the 2008 primaries, double the number of iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina combined this year.

that just gives you an idea of the state of florida, the primary, and what to look for on primary day as the votes come in. by the way, speaking of debates, this number in a column -- 64%, the share of south carolina voters who say the recent debates were the most important or the most the poor and factor in their vote. gingrich successfully made debating skill as a campaign issue, as the once disciplined romney has started to stumble and the verbal sparring matches. that is in "the washington post" this morning. speaking of romney and his strategy. mitt romney takes aim at surging in bridge. that is the headline in "the washington post." some of you may have already seen mr. romney's, test today on the campaign trail, making an issue of speaker newt gingrich's tenure as speaker, the strategy going forward. chris christie on "meet the press" talking about the

speaker's tenure and that is the headline in "the star ledger." he is quoted as saying newt gingrich has embarrassed the party over time. we will meet monday read you more as we go along about the 2012 presidential gop field. but back to our question, how is your governor handling the economy. david, independent in illinois. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. probably the only honest, independent news program out here. governor quinn is terrible. he raises taxes, fees, he closes down public -- like hospitals and stuff like that. it is just another chicago, illinois, politician. illinois $8 billion in the hole and now obama from illinois is put the country trillion dollars in the hole. i can't believe obama did not pass that keystone pipeline.

the prime minister of canada stated he was an idiot and sold all of their oil to china. host: tom from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: i think rick scott is trying to and something which is a big problem in american society today, and that it is we are a "make excuses" society. we have politicians who make excuses and people and organizations, putting our entire society in a very dangerous mode of comfort zone that is very, very destructive. we have unemployed people that we make excuses for when it is entirely within their power to improve themselves or both to another area where their skills might be used.

we have a school system whose culture of education has never been worse. it is terrible. and what do we hear? if only we had more money, if only we did this, if only we did that. that has nothing to do with picking up a book, going home, studying, doing your homework, going back to school, behaving yourself, and trying to learn. host: let me show our viewers what rick scott had to say in his state of the state address. >> this session, we need to lower, lower burdensome taxes on smaller businesses and continue our mission of slashing red tape in florida. [applause] i am also asking you to require job training for those receiving unemployment checks. [applause]

i am sore, like in your life and my life, every challenge creates opportunity and time in between jobs gets -- gives unemployed floridians a time to learn new skills. by lowering taxes and eliminating unnecessary regulations are critical, the bedrock of any sound, sustainable economy is an educated workforce well-equipped to meet the challenges of an advanced global marketplace. host: governor rick scott in florida. here is an e-mail from a viewer from deerfield beach.

one of our viewers. indianapolis, you are next. a democratic caller. what do you make of your governor? he will be giving the gop response to the state of the union address. caller: he is nothing but a crook. host: what you say that? caller: he has not done nothing. fully nobody but themselves. he is a crook. host: we will show you a little bit about what governor daniels had to say in his state of the state. but first, james, an independent in north carolina. caller: thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. let me tell you, you are the industry standard and i appreciate you giving the american people a voice. i agree with the lady who called from kansas about their all the

same, and i agree with the man from fort lauderdale calling about our education system. perdue, our governor in north carolina, and she don't strike me as competent. she seems to be a sheep led by her democratic handlers. and we are the cattle being led to slaughter. i do not think the numbers they are reporting about unemployment are accurate. and it just really plain and simple, class warfare going on. and they love it, that the american public is at each other's throats. host: what kind of grade you give your governor? caller: de-. she just spends money. she does not put in policies or programs that put us to work. it seems like all the stimulus money that disappeared from obama just went to states to keep cops on the beat to arrest

poor people. i would give for re d- if not f. host: we put a pall on our facebook page on friday asking the you agree without your governor is handling the economy. here is how it shakes out. 50 people said yes they agree, 67 people said no. if you want to take part in the c-l, go to facebook.com \ span. and we put this morning's question up on facebook as well and you can respond and give us your thoughts on how the governor -- your governor is handling the economy and what the economy is like in your community. gary, republican from arizona. caller: thank you very much. the media in general -- not talking about c-span as much -- they are basically destroying themselves. because once the government gets so big and so powerful, they are

going to control you 100%. right now the government is controlling quite a bit now, as far as what the media says, they are controlling what they are saying now, but it will get really bad. they did not realize they are destroying themselves by what they are doing, by supporting not more government. i am not a rich person but if you keep taxing the rich people it will destroy the country. host: back to 20 swat politics, "wall street journal" editorial page has this this morning. what they say -- his own challenges he is his worst when he is on top. in a recent fox news poll, 56% had an unfavorable view of him, versus 27% favorable.

the speaker was on our program yesterday here on "washington journal," toward the end of the show. here is what he had to say about his campaign going forward. [video clip] >> florida is big solutions for

a big country. diming a speech on the space coast, for example, about the future of man in space and the united states in space. we will give a speech on health, contrasting romneycare, obamacare and health care. we will give a speech on economic growth. we will have a speech on cuba and latin america. i hope really once a day to do something very positive and a clear about positive ways of moving forward as a country. host: speaker newt gingrich on yesterday. he is today we also had james cliburn, the third democratic leader in the house. -- clyburn, the third democratic leader in the house. the latest iteration of the gop tactics that stretches back to richard nixon's southern

strategy and ronald reagan's criticism of so-called where foot -- welfare queens during his presidential bid. gues >> sure it resonated. 49 percent of the people that are on welfare are white. we know that, but people think otherwise. and we know they're never existed the welfare queen. the admission was made they greeted that, but it worked. we had a welfare queen created by ronald reagan, newt gingrich decided he would create a stamp queen. that is what he did. the fact of the matter is, nobody wants to be on food stamps. clyburn es

yesterday on "washington journal." speaking of money, the speaker to weeded out this yesterday, amazing 24 hours. -- tweeted this -- then the wall street journal had this, mr. romney still holds the financial advantage. the governor plans to raise as much as 10 million ahead of the florida primary.

it has created many of the national fund traders -- fund- raisers that worked for rick perry before he dropped out last week. money could be more informed than ever after it appears the republican nominee could be contested for several additional months. in addition to funding television from advertisements, and several expensive media markets, they will need to pay for private air fare to house campaigns around the state. he said over the past 24 hours, 1 million raised. and want to hear from you how your governor is handling the economy. and caller: good morning, and

thank you for c-span. and if you could give me a minute, i promise to be thoughtful. our governor was once a congressman, in the united states congress. he was chased from congress for malfeasance and became governor of the georgia. he is what you would call a divider in my opinion. through his campaign to be the governor of georgia, she'd made it very disparaging -- he made very disparaging remarks about ghetto grandmothers, and he also bragged about not voting for the

civil rights bill to renew it. he actually brag about that on his campaign stops around the state. host: a democrat in atlanta, georgia. virginia next. harvey is an independent in amherst. host: bob macdonald and virginia, contemplating on raising taxes. locally i am a 75-year-old man. i am living on social security. they are raising rates and reduced to raise them on businesses. this seems like a pounding on the middle-class to raise money to fund a their agendas.

and speaking of the federal government and the problem we have had in trying to get a consensus or get them together and do something for the country, rather than the individual states, they have an agenda, and they're going to follow it. i would it is the people of this country to take a close look at transparency during this election concerning the romney in new gingrich and how ron paul has been given little coverage. he is sort of like being chastised by the republican party. host: helen, a republican in california. i am impressed with some of the actions he has taken. he was the driving force behind

ending redevelopment agencies in our state. and it gave about $5 billion per year in tax revenue to cities for them to spend on whatever they thought they needed to remove light from their towns. and they spend it on things like state parks and staging festivals and the circus approach to using it. they also said there were going to make more affordable housing in the community, but when you look at it, it displaced a lot of people from low-income housing and build housing that only people who made over 60,000-100,000 could afford to buy. there was a lot of scandal about putting money into redevelopment pockets and land. we also had an incident where

there was a mcdonald's they said was too close to the corner, so they spent $6 million on buying a lot of few feet away from the mcdonald's so they could move it further from high school so kids would not be so tempted to buy hamburgers. it was a lot of social welfare. things that we were doing without money. >> we covered jerry brown's state of the union address covering services and taxes going forward. "washington journ[video clip] >> for my part, i am determined to press ahead. the cuts are not ones i like, but the situation demands that. as for the initiative, it is fair, a temporary, and half of what people were paying in 2010. it will protect schools and guarantee in the constitution, funding for the of programs

which transformed -- transferred to the local government. we should devise more permanent tax reform, but for now we should finish the job of bringing spending in line with revenues. >host: the governor said the spending reductions were necessary to close at $9.2 billion budget gap in that state. the l.a. times editorial page weighed in say the governor, most of it right. the tax relief he is seeking would be temporary and the california still paying less in taxes than they did two years ago. without it, a firmer -- further dismantling would be necessary. it will end up costing the state more in the long-run. also, the wall street journal weighs in on governor jerry

brown as well. california's millionaire tax for raj. there is a new report showing the revenue projections are fanciful. in a new report -- that is "wall street journal" with their take. next call is from lincoln city, oregon. caller: my governor is going

around for a second time, kind of like california. we have been trying to deal with health care for a long time little kids -- whoever, you need help care. and-- health care. all there is is trying to figure out some sort of solution, not not have any health care for people. my other perspective is who is paying for the fbi, homeland security, cia, two wars, medicaid? if we cannot pitch in in this country -- i do not care if you are mitt romney and pays 0% taxes, how about that? everyone has a bunch of money.

they didn't have to pay taxes with the tax deal. we have to pay for things. host: what is the economy like an organ? caller: is lincoln city. we're the highest in the state. it is 14%. host: the economy is something that is likely to be addressed at the state of the union address tomorrow when president obama will talk to congress in millions of viewers. our coverage begins at 8:00 eastern time. we will be taking your phone calls as well. go to all of that. the washington post says obama aims to make his case for reelection to marmite. also in the papers, john boehner last obama agenda. that is from the new york post this morning, saying the agenda

that will be rolled out to marmite -- the speaker called it bathetic. the prime time speech in which he will begin making the argument for a second term will be a return to american values. then there will be a surprising face of the state of the union. gabrielle giffords who said yesterday she will lead congress this week will attend the state of the union address. here is the "baltimore sun" this morning --

here is a little bit from the video that congress woman gabrielle giffords put out yesterday. [video clip] >> i will step down this week. and i am getting better every day. my spirit is hyperion i will return, and we will work together for arizona, and this great country. thank you very much. -- i will return, and we will work together for arizona and this great country. and host: gabrielle giffords if the video yesterday saying she will resign from congress this week. just a couple of minutes left. how is your governor handling the economy? this is from "the new york times" on january 17.

want to show you what andrew cuomo had to say in his state of the state address. >> the cost of tensions are growing sky high, as you know. 100% increase we need to reform the pension system. i understand politics and political opposition, but the choice for you this year is this. when we're talking about pension reform for union employees, we're talking about employees who do not exist at this point in time. employees are covered by the current pension system. we're talking about changing the pension system for employees who may be hired in the future. host: andrew cuomo in his state of the state address.

sayingg the governor's -- the governor's budget is only a staying point. we uncovering many of these state of the state addresses. where will air a handful of them tonight at 9:00 eastern time. we will begin with the mayor of new york, mayor bloomberg. and then go on to jerry brown. we will continue to air the state of the state addresses. one more phone call, how is your governor handling the economy? our governor fallon when she was running for the governorship here, you would have thought there were no at jobs plans or anything. the only thing she was doing was running against president obama.

here in oklahoma, if it was not for the stimulus package and all of the construction as they are doing on the highways and expressway's industries in things that employ more people by the mexicans we have, they spent $2.5 million on a driveway at monroe middle school. when we got it, they spent $2.5 million on refurbishing the school board tip. just like with governor met ronnie, governor fallon hold their hands out on one thing -- the employment that they have -- mayor romney has people cutting [inaudible] we were totally red.

there was nothing blue in oklahoma. if it was not for the stimulus packages, i do not know where we would be. host: have to run on that point. rick santorum writes is an editorial. as many of you know, mitt romney has said he will release his tax records tomorrow, tuesday. coming up next, we will talk about taxing private equity income and how it works. we will be right back. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [video clip] >> mr. speaker, president of the

united states. >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern, including his speech, a republican response, and your phone calls. live on c-span and c-span radio. watch the president's speech, along with tweets from members of congress. throughout the night go on line for a live video and to add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. [video clip] some will say we are reactionary. others will say we stand for socialism. there will be the inevitable cries and so the rest will go. it is time for change and so on and so on. we will hear all those things, but we will hear nothing we of not heard before. >> as candidates campaigned for

president this year. we look back of 14 man who ran for office and lost. -- 14 men who ran for office and lost. let our opponent stand on the status quo while we seek to refresh the american spirit. >> let the 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 and with members who will not expect special favors for themselves, but a better land for us all. [applause] >> c-span.org/the contecontende. host: kevin has set works at the

american enterprise institute talking about private equity income. hassett.evin guest: basically what it means is some people said a private equity funds, and you and i might put our money into such a fund, and the managers would take our money and put it to work. there are lots of ways they put it to work. some funds focus on venture- capital list. they go around and look for a cool idea and invest in that spirit an. other firms are turnaround specialist. if there is a company like kodak feeling, you might see private equity swoop in and fix them. there are lots of other scenarios we can think of. the basic idea is they either

create new businesses or by old businesses and try to make money. -- buy old businesses and try to make money. host: that is what bain capital did when you make the case of kodak. typically when someone is investing in private equity, how much are they investing, and what is the investment? guest: the big ones are in very large amounts to get in, 1 million or more. there is not a fixed roll that rules out smaller investments. -- fixed rule that rules out smaller investments. guest: bain capital does all of the above. one of the things they did when it romney was there is the by bought troubled firms and tried

to turn them around. the idea is if they're losing money, maybe they will go out of business, we will buy them for next to nothing. if you go in and make tough choices, maybe a plan over here and so on, then you could turn it into a profitable enterprise and sell it at a profit. sometimes the best bargains are companies that are really miss- managed. missed management creates an opportunity for a good manager to come in and fix it. the problem politically is that very often he might have gone in and taken over a firm that had 1000 workers, and after they reorganized it was down to 600 workers. you could look and see before he went in there were 1000. after there was 600. he fired 400 people. that is the sound bite causing harm to him on the political

campaign. host: if you are an executive of a private equity firm, why do you have a 15% tax rate? guest: the private equity income you get as an executive is taxed a few different ways, and so when you are actually getting salary, it is taxed the same way that you or my salary is taxed. if you get a capital gain, it is passed through you with a capital gains treatment. if i am a private equity side, but if we buy this company. let's use kodak as an example. we go in and buy it, and then we make a lot of money by turning it around and selling it at a profit. if you buy it for less than you sell its cover of that difference is the capital gain. it is taxed at 15 percent

signed. there is a misconception that private equity firms are treated a lot differently from other firms in societies, but it is not true. if income keeps its status, then that is how it is taxed. would that mean that that executive that was able to get taxed at 15 percent signed, does that mean that executive could put their own money on the line? guest: yes. basically what happens is the private equity guy will charge an expense feet. that will be tested ordinary income rates. if he has a capital gain, then

it is taxable capital gain tax. he could invest his own money in the firm. the other way is they attribute a share of the profits of to the partners. if you are investing in my firm, then we might say if i make a $100 capital gain for you, then i will keep 20 of it. you keep 80. if i lose money, then i get nothing. that might be a compensation deal you agree to. when we did that and i get my $20, we tax that. >> when you look at the tax record estimated, we will not know tomorrow until he unveils it, but this is what "usa" today did last week. taxed at regular rates, 5-80

million of the end. what does that mean to you? can you explain that? guest: first, of course mayor ronnie is supposedly obeying all the walls. i suspect he is a pretty careful guy. what happens is when he has income that is not capital income, so it is not dividends and capital gains, and he pays the same rates that you and i do on our own wages, but has income of this capital income, than he pays the same rates that you and i do. since he is rich, he is more capital income kerrigan they are lower than labor income taxes for reasons that is solid. basically, capital is very mobile. if you try to have high tax rates, then moves to other countries. economists have all said he should have low rates on capital because it creates jobs here in the u.s., and politicians have

agreed the case for that is sound. but it does mean is someone who has lots of wealth on their capital income side, they will pay a lower tax rate than a high income wage earner. and 15%, there is a lot of the income distribution paying that. and you are already talking the upper half of that income distribution to have a rate like that. and if% is a lot lower than i pay on my income. it does not accept me -- upset me. maybe it is because i am under the economist. hear from robin of first talking about taxing capital gains. caller: two questions. can you talk about what a hedge

fund or like george soros is. host: can you repeat that? let's begin with the first thing he said. capital gains is double taxation. aboutt: we can talk single and double taxation. basically if i get a capital gain, then that will be taxed once, because it is just a capital gain that i got, and when i put it on my income tax, then i will pay tax on it. but if i invest in a corporate entity. say you buy stock and the dividends and capital gains, then there is -- there are two layers of taxation. and the company to invest in, they pay corporate tax, and then

they give you money and you take a capital gain, and then you pay individual taxes. a lot of places around the world in the crates -- integrates them. if a european company pays corporate tax, then shareholders get credit for the corporate tax. the total tax you pay on your income tax statement is a net of what you owe,-with the corporation already paid. and in the u.s. we do not have that kind of integration. there is more like an extra layer of tax. it is one reason capital taxes are a lot higher than the rest of the world. >> frogood morning. you did not include if you have a capital loss you could deduct that from your income, which in essence, the taxpayers are now subsidizing your loss and that

bed, and the only way you can be so called doubly taxed is on that same capital income is if you make money twice on that initial investment. so you sold the stock, made money, invested in another stock and made more money, therefore you are paying taxes again, but that was not the real reason -- real question i had. host: before you go on, i want kevin to respond. guest: her point about capital losses being deducted is true, but you have to deduct them against other capital gains. and host: you cannot write off or lost? guest: you can, but cannot write off your labor. and you can cancel out those, and you do not owe tax because the loss cancels out the game.

if i lose $100, i cannot subtract the $100 from my salary and then pay tax on the smaller amount of income. host: are you there? i think i lost her. caller: i always wondered about why no one ever discuss is the fact that wages are not in come here yecome. there is no way. that is a quid pro quo. host: what do you mean by that? caller: wages are not income. wages are earned. guest: duke also raises an interesting point here than wages are in come, certainly from the point of view of taxes,

but if we're trying to decide whether you should go to work or not, then if you can stay home and be at home, that might make you happy. if you have to go to work, then maybe you have to put your kids in day care and have to commute in go and deal with the boss that you do not like. maybe that does not make you as happy. so it the way to compensate you for the unhappiness, just barely, it is a hard question whether you should go to work and whether you're better off by going to work. that is an interesting point of view from an economic model. leroy's deciding to do the things because it makes us better off. and if they're paying me $10 an hour work, going to work is awash in terms of psyche in some. host: president obama last week on thursday and one of his

campaign even talk about cutting taxes for the wealthy. -- campaign events talked about cutting taxes for the wealthy. [video clip] and responded with the same old, tired cut taxes for wealthy people, let companies do whatever they want, even if it is harming other folks, and somehow prosperity will trickle down to everybody else. in we try that. and i do not know if you remember, but we tried that. [applause] it never worked. it did not work when it was tried in the decade before the great depression. it is not what led to the incredible boom in the '50s and '60s that created the greatest middle class on earth.

it did not work back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 5 and 6. have to say economic -- president obama's e. could rise -- economic advisers must be pulling their hair out when the talks like that. the fact is we have not tried it, that is the problem. right now the u.s. has the highest corporate tax on earth except for ivory coast. and the highest corporate tax on earth. you have really high income taxes, too. the reason we have really high income taxes is we do not have a value added tax. the fact is we have not tried trickle-down puritawn. every company is locating new activity offshore, because the average tax rate for u.s.

multinationals is around 17%. if they invest in the u.s., they have to pay 39 percent signed. i am going to put it over there. the class warfare the president is playing is the reason why we have a 9% unemployment. it is because we're basically tracing capital punitively. we're chasing it away from the country. his people know that. and he has very smart, sound advice. the fact is if we do not get america back into the game in the corporate tax base, if we do not make a pleasant place to locate a plant, no one will have a job, and it will be president obama's fault. he could have cut the corporate rate and made it an attractive place. if he did that, we would have a low unemployment rate. but he did not do that. instead he is going back to the tired rhetoric.

and i do not think even he believes what he was saying. host: here is "the washington journal" last week. they said after this news he needs of big reform policy in their opinion. they write this -- with the 15% news, you are going to be attacked anyway. what matters is how you respond. guest: i think governor romney

eventually will have to oversee a big tax reform. as i said, the u.s. is such an inhospitable place for investment right now, because our taxes are so high that there is not in a job creation. if we do not do something to change it, we will not get jobs to locate here, it is that some soul -- simple. i think it is likely we will start to see more of a big tax plan from governor romney. i think he sketched ideas in that regard, but has not given a full detailed plan yet. i think the policy strategy has been to run a general election in the primary because he viewed himself as inevitable or one it -- wanted to run as the guy that was inevitable. so if you can run a general

election campaign where you have a moderate positions, stay away from controversy on policy and win, then it places to a perfectly for the fall, but if you fear to the right in the republican party in order to get the nomination, it makes the fall more difficult. followk hillary clinton call the mitt romney's strategy. i think the inevitability card is not looking like this from this one right now, or lease it is up in the air. i would not be surprised if he has to bear to the right -- veered to the rig to the right. host: "the new york times" broke down the plans.

if you are interested in that, january 19 in "the new york times." here is an e-mail from a viewer -- guest: you can carry losses forward. if you have a bigger loss than you do income this year, this is true on the corporate and income side, then you can carry this forward. that is meant to make it basically to go after evasion, because people might take big losses to zero out in come, but also to make sure there is plenty of room for people who are in trouble to recapture some of their losses. and host: another tweet for you -- that is a fair point, but you have to understand the loophole we are talking about that allows you to have a 17%

rate instead of 35% issue put the jobs offshore. if a company puts the jobs offshore, they pay a lower tax rates, and they can basically make a large profit and is really good for the company. it is really bad for the american worker. if we want the companies to locate here, we need to make the and as the attractive. it is kind of a loophole, and i would agree puritan the u.s. corporate rate only rarely collects money from the people who have a really hard time moving stuff around. if you ever really big airplane plant in the u.s. with lots of union jobs, that is all located here. there's not a lot you can do to pay the lower tax rate. if you are google or microsoft

and have a lot of intellectual property, you come put your operations wherever it is best for you to maximize profits. i am not saying the companies are totally getting hammered because of the high u.s. corporate take -- great, because i do not think that is true. companies are not getting hammered, but the workers in america are getting hammered by this. it is not that complicated. it makes sense. frankly this should not be a partisan issue. host: kathy is a republican in florida. go ahead. caller: 6 the point i wanted to make is i think the biggest problem when it comes to the tax rate and the wealthy and all of this is just the overwhelming amount of greed in our society. this goes for government and the

large corporations and your average joe. i think our society was not built on that. i think it was built on the christian ethic, and i am not talking about religion. and i am talking about a true heart where it was love your neighbor as yourself. people talk a lot about if we raise taxes, it will be just put on to the people in the higher keep theoods, so let's taxes low. what no one ever talks about is how about the people who have their money, how it is going to sell for france and have their expensive cars and $1,000 suits, number one, a person does not mean those things, because if you have god and have your health and shelter, clothing, basics, and have the ability to love, what do you really need?

we come into this life naked, we leave this like naked. host: we have your point on the policy part of it. you have some very good point. i recommend a book called capitalism, socialism, and democracy. he brooded over a long time. he started to look ahead towards the future of american capitalism and was worried about it, because he thought there would be a declining influence of religion and traditional values as we became more of a super rational state. he argued that he thought one of the governors on capitalism the major firms have their incentives and the right way was a sense of family. that if the ceo, if his main objective is to leave a great business for his kids, then he will have a better perspective

on what the firm should do than someone who was worried about cashing in options after a good quarterly statement. so he relates the success of capitalism to traditional values. i think it is interesting stuff. host: we're talking with kevin americanf the enterprise institute. this is an article from last week. how can we not afford to do that? guest: we certainly need to get

more revenue and reduce spending, but this private equity proposal by the president, it is similar to the populism we saw in his speech. it is something that has been tried over and over again in the past decade. every time it gets to congress and they start having hearings, everyone rejects the change. the reason is it is based on a false premise that private equity is being treated differently. it is not the treatment of private equity. it is fully consistent with the rest of the u.s. tax code. riding a special role that hammers them particular hard just because some of them have made a lot of money is really bad tax policy because what it does is it tells people who were hoping to make a lot of money in the future you should not do it in the u.s., because if you end up with lots of profits we will end up with a special law that takes your money away. that dynamic consistency where we say here are our apparels,

and if you make money, we will still apply those roles to you. and didouare our rules, you make money, we will still apply those rules to you. that rule of law is something a lot of studies have found it is important for investment. it has been tried a zillion times and has never happened. it is a silly idea. democrats and republicans both recognize that when you're hearing and talk about it, but it is good campaign speaking. washington, d.c. caller: it has never happened because the rich own congress. they have for years. and i want to talk about what ordinary people get in their standard deductions.

people get $5,000 in an ordinary deduction. everything over that, they are paying 12%-15 percent signed, same as private billion at equity guys. you are paying a tax rate on what it cost to live. president obama, and i hope he carries through on this, says no one should pay any taxes unless they cover the cost of living, which is between 30,000-$40,000. you cannot live on $475 per month, which is what $5,800 standard deduction comes. that standard deduction should be at least what it cost to have a minimal, poverty standard of living. this is unfair. this tax loophole is disingenuous, typical right-wing garbage. host: let's get a response.

guest: ok. first, standard deduction is not the only thing. there are lots of other things, too, and it will depend on whether you itemize or not. it depends on the child credit. and they are refundable. and if your income is below 20,000-25,000 and are not paying tax. even the payroll tax is refunded for many people in that area through the income tax credit. as you get above 20,000-25,000 it depends if you are married and have kids. and you can get an income that is double that and still not pay the income tax. i think it is really important. and i noticed that the end stefanie seemed angry about it. the fact is it should not be as

against them kind of thing. -- should not be us against them kind of thing. it is much more friendly than the u.s., because this idea that your country needs to be an attractive place for investors isliquidaocate plants and shops not a partisan idea. all the parties in europe are behind low corporate taxes because they want jobs in their country. they learned that fact and it became a non-partisan issue because the countries are integrated in the european union. there is a lot of mobility. if you are belgium and the netherlands has a much lower rate, than it is like to state in the u.s. -- like two states in the u.s. so that has moved faster in

europe. all i'm saying is it does not move in the u.s., we will continue to have high unemployment. and host: this tweet -- let me go to barbara, a democrat in missouri. caller: good morning. and i would like to make three quick comments. one, slaves used to stay in this country if we just take care of mastic, massive will take care of us. if we are agreed to give the corporations a tax break, and we tie that to keeping our jobs here. trickle down started in the 1980's. and what do you think bush tax cuts were about? guest: thanks for the questions. bush cut the income tax rate from 39.6 to 35%, but did not do

anything to reduce the corporate tax. is fact is that's 39.6 to 35 a small tax change. it is not one that one would expect to have a huge positive effects. and i think the notion that it is some kind of horrible supply- side experiment that caused the weak economy, would have to somehow demonstrate that changing the top tax income will cause a calamity, but the changes so small it is unreasonable. i would argue that if the bush tax cut from 39.6 to 35 enrages you, it is not because of the economics, it is because you are just angry about bush. caller: think you for taking my call. -- thank you for taking my call.

earlier there was the comment the private equity investment is available to everyone. my experience in contacting the private equity firms is someone like myself with $100,000 in net worth that is wanting to invest $5,000 cannot invest. you have to be an accredited investor. these are only for very well how field and people with substantial amounts of wealth. guest: my statement does not mean to be corrected, but you need to look at the whole statement said. you are absolutely right that the the successful ones only deal with very large successful investors. in part because they do not want to have too many partners because it gets too complicated, and then there is a limits for many of them. so if you want to have a fund of

a certain size, the minimum contribution has to be a certain amount, but there is nothing to stop you from starting a private equity firm in trying to do it yourself with what government you have. host: long beach, california. peggy, an independent. caller: if we hear about the u.s. having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. can you explain the companies that have that. corporate subsidies wind about taxes but get the break. every time i ssee it romney on tv, he is saying get out of my business. i did see about one of his companies getting a $35 million subsidy, and when they sold the company that got 85 million profit. mr. romney, the be should not take any more government assistance like that. guest: you are exactly right.

the head of the jobs counsel for president obama is jeffrey mel imelt, head of general electric. the word got out there were not paying any taxes. the reason they did not pay taxes as they have a $35 billion loss. so they did not have carried backs, which would make it so they could tstill have losses. there will be a time where she is not paying taxes, but only because they lost so much money. the key point is that if corporations are not paying a lot of tax and it is a big multinational, the most likely reason is they have located a lot of their activity offshore. the u.s. code encourages them to do that. you could say that is the loophole you do not like, and i would agree with you. if we encourage them to relocate here, we will create jobs and it

will be a better economy. host: there is a tweet for you -- which bubbles are we in now is the question he wants to know. guest: i think the most common type of bubble is when there is something that is new and not understood very well, and everyone thinks it will be very profitable, but there is not any science to go on. if you are an entrepreneur or in your want to make a lot of money-- and you want to make a lot of money, the way your corn to make money is inventing something no one has seen before. this is something that is sort of a biological thing. a lot of times when there is

uncertainty, then if someone else thinks it is a great investment, then i have a lot of respect for her, and maybe i will invest in it, even though i do not a sound, rational reason other than you are doing it. you can get these waves where people are all doing something in part because they get the comfort of being around people they respect you are making the same decision. but if you deconstructs the decision, it is not based on rational analysis. i do not know if there is such a bubble right now. if we look around, prices are so depleted, it seems like pessimism is driving prices. host: are the bubble's pact that 15 percent? guest: yes. -- are the bubbles taxed at 15%/ ? guest: it is true that most

corporations are small businesses, and that is because there are millions and millions of people who make money on ebay, and when they fill out taxes, they put income from the bay, so they count as a business. most businesses are small, but most jobs are related to large businesses. there are millions and millions, and you have schedules c and come from event, then you have the spirit anis. host: is a small business owner taxed at 15 percent? guest: they will be taxed just as you or i are. host: connecticut. democratic line. caller: my question is, how is it possible that president clinton was able to decrease the deficit and raise employment

followed by president bush who did the exact opposite? guest: that is a very important question. i think if you go back and look at president clinton's policy, it is almost a mirror image of president bush in the sense that he had a little marginal tax rate increase for income taxes that really is so small it would be hard to find anything with in an error in the economic models that shows exactly what it would do. he had a lot of other good policies. in particular, he was a fiscal hawks, in part motivated by secretary rubin who thought we need to have surpluses or very small deficits. he coalesced with the republican congress, i think, and had a small, lean government. government grew a lot under

president bush. it is something people do not think about. and if you talk about the big government and a guy coming would have to say bush. he increased marginal taxes. -- if you talk about the big government guy, you would have to say bush. oil prices were host: we will get one more phone call. viewers on twitter reacting in real time to our conversation. linda is a small business owner. illinois, robyn, independent. go ahead. caller: i have a two part question. are you a free-market economist? second, what is your opinion on if there is zero% federal income tax, would there be a boom in

the economy and would people be able to pay for their own services out of pocket instead of being dependent on government? guest: i think that keynes was probably free market at times, but he argued that we should just move the business cycle. there is a big academic opinion. i am not following him in my philosophy. in my house if i asked one of the kids to do something and they really don't like it they will say that is keynsian. in terms of the 0% federal income tax, it depends. but if you replace the income tax with a basic value added tax, if we would have a much more efficient economy and lots of job growth. host: i'm sure that your wife

appreciates those rhetorical statements. thanks for being here, kevin. we will follow on last week's blackout of popular web sites like wikipedia and look at the anti-piracy legislation in congress. first, news update from c-span radio. >> republican presidential candidate and former speaker of the house newt gingrich speaking earlier on abc's good morning america says his victory in the south carolina primary shows people want a nominee who is going to shake up washington. he went on to accuse gop contender mitt romney of saying things "he knows are false" about mr. gingrich prosy record of freddie mac. he added that he is comfortable with releasing details of his contract with freddie mac. as president obama begins campaigning for his second term, there's word this morning he plans to participate in a video chat room next week answering questions about his state of the

union address. google plus will solicit questions over youtube and reviewers will vote on their favorite. the president will deliver his state of the union tomorrow night. 9:00 p.m. eastern, followed by the republican response delivered by indiana governor mitch daniels. you can hear that on c-span radio or watch on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. [cheer] >> president obama will deliver his state of the union address tuesday night. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, including the president's speech, republican response by mitch daniels, and your phone calls. live on c-span and c-span radio. on c-span 2, what president's speech along with tweets from members of congress and the more reaction from house members and senators. then go online.

add your comments using facebook and twitter at c-span.org. for more resources in the presidential race, can use our campaign 2012 web site to watch candidates.he a can read the latest from candidates, political reporters, and people like you from social media web sites. washington journal continues. >> markham erickson is the executive director of the open internet coalition. anti-piracy legislation. we discussed this last wednesday. the black out of some of the most popular web sites like wikipedia, craigslist and others. how many total web sites participated in last week's blackout? guest: we are still trying to look at the numbers. it was more than 5000 last time i saw someone stsend statistics.

host: google, facebook, and twitter support the efforts of the blackout, but they did not black out there web sites completely. guest: i think every internet company knows how best to communicate issues to their users. i think that they are reluctant normally to try to use their real estate in a way that is self-serving, so they don't do it very often. i think it highlights how important this issue was that they did it at all. it was the first time most of these web sites had ever done anything like this. host: when you say google and ad revenue, what has it lost potentially if it had closed down its web site 24 hours? guest: i am not sure. google makes most of its money from internet advertising.

going off the internet for one day would have been substantial. i think users would not have reacted very well if they went to the internet web site and try to search for something and found that it had gone dark. i think they found an appropriate way to a message to their users. each company has to make that decision themselves. host: lamar smith, who supports put anti-piracy legislation, called wednesday's effort a media stunt ann stock there might be a backlash. you're saying, had some web sites got all the way to black out, there would've been backlash by their users, but the effort would not have worked? >> nothing like this ever happened before. it was a pretty extraordinary moment in time. i've been in this intellectual property. more than 20 years and have never seen anything like this in terms of the amount of response in washington, d.c., from millions and millions of americans. i think it shows that for a lot

of these web sites they found the right calibration on how to generate interest from the users and how to get their users to contact members of congress. host: any idea of phone calls made to the capitol switchboard? guest: statistics i saw were that 1500 calls were made pursuant to congressional offices, 5000 petitions per minute that were sent to congress. something like 4 million tweets. this is all in a 24- period. 152 visitors to wikimedia./ of that, 9 million users signed on my additions to their members of congress. nothing like this before, quite extraordinary. host: 1 effort was to stop the online piracy act and the other was to protect intellectual property act. sopa and pipa, where do those two bills stand?

guest: last week's leaders in the senate announced that they would not bring this bill up this week for the senators to vote on. senate majority leader harry reid about one month ago had scheduled a vote on pipa in the senate as the first item of business for the senate to take up tomorrow. nd after last week's event, senator harry reid said that he would postpone that vote. on the heels of that in the house the chairman of the relevant committee in the house of representatives said that he would postpone consideration of the house bill so, until further notice. -- sopa. right now the immediate reaction that we were going to see on pipa and sopa have been postponed. we have a chance here to step back as stakeholders and to reevaluate how we can best

address the concerns raised by copyright owners on how to deal with this on the internet and to take a more thoughtful and intentional look at various proposals and see which ones work best. host: congressman darrell issa california along with ron white, a democrat from california, have put forward open, is that compromise legislation? guest: i don't know, but it is very good and it is a thoughtful approach. we think it ought to be thoroughly looked at to see if there are unintentional consequences and we should have input from all stakeholders including consumers and users about how this would impact the internet and how this address is illegal activity and make sure

we have the right balance. this is not an easy area to legislate. copyright law is not an easy area of the law. it is complicated. it becomes even more complicated on the internet. these issues have to be handled delicately and carefully to make sure that any benefit and any harm we are trying to address is calibrated in such a way that it does not create the unintentional collateral damage on free speech, innovation, or jobs. host: what is the biggest sticking point with what the advocates of anti-piracy legislation are trying to do? guest: we have not really had a discussion first about the scale and scope of the problem. clearly there's a problem with online piracy and illegal activity that happens on the internet. like any kind of legislative or regulatory proposal, whether it is dealing with clean air or clean water or automobile safety, you first have to get the sense of what the problem is. i think, in this case, congress

rushed past that discussion into solutions. and when you don't know the scope of the problem, it is really hard to calibrate whether the burden on consumers and companies is appropriate relative to the heart. host: mark elliott of the u.s. chamber of commerce says about the scope of the problem -- guest: well, the issue is not whether piracy is bad and there's illegal activity on the internet. clearly there is. the legislation throws out numbers like that, but the

government accounting office, which is an independent body of congress, as a those numbers are not verifiable and almost certainly overblown. that is not to say there is not a problem and we should not figure out how to address the problem. but we have to make sure we are doing it in a very data-driven away and verify that we know the harm that is out there. host: a former senator from connecticut, chris dodd, he would welcome this summit meeting between internet companies and content companies may be convened by the white house to look for compromise on the anti-piracy laws. -- anti-piracy bills. guest: i think the white house on beacon say it was not interested in holding a summit, but this was a legislative issue. but of course we would love to sit down with members and see how we can work together. we are both stakeholders on this issue. online piracy does not help my

numbers. it does not help the hollywood studios. so the right framework is one that is a win-win for everyone and explore solutions for consumers, to protect content, and don't have collateral implications of technology. host: let's go to michigan, independent caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. could you give a correlation, conceptual breakdown of the difference of piracy at sea and piracy on land in terms of commerce? host: what is the definition of online piracy? guest: piracy is not really defined in the u.s. code. rihanna talking about copyright infringement or counterfeit goods. -- we are talking about

copyright infringement. it is subject to a fair use and free speech. we allow consumers to use content without authorization for things like parody and news clips and personal use. so it is not an easy area to come up with a clear definition of what is and what is not illegal. there are things that go beyond the pale. we have to figure out how to get those web sites without imposing an overa broad approach. host: a republican, dean. morning. caller: i am very concerned about the piracy bill. there's a difference between news clips and copyright.

host: 1 about people -- we got a lot of phone calls last wednesday about people who ahve blogs and to do social media. they're concerned sopa and pit bull will impact on. advocates say it will have no impact on what you do. guest: constitutional experts argued and submitted letters to congress that the proposed legislation would violate the first amendment. getting the legislation might have to be done in a way that is constitutional. the key is to craft legislation that gets at illegal content but protect lawful content. the proposals in congress were too broad. under constitutional law analysis, that overbreast is what makes the legislation's unconstitutional -- overbreath.

these bills would have taken a grenade to web sites that would have eliminated lawful content and illegal content. that was the concern. host: center for individual freedom put together myth versus fact. targeting online -- guest: that kind of rhetoric is not helpful in giving policymakers a road map to craft legislation. no one is arguing unlawful content should receive constitutional protection. the question is whether the proposals are so broad that it also faugh sweeps in lawful

content. we want a policy that allows us tuna and not the dolphins. this is really the issue. host: virginia, independent caller. go ahead. caller: free-speech, how is it affected when they shot down a page because of content and erase the comments and everything that have been made about at? is that the reason for the free- speech issue? thank you. guest: i certainly think that is part of it. there are many millions and millions of individual blog owners that amid concerns to their members of congress to say that they did not want their blog being taken down because someone posted an illegal link to a copyrighted work somewhere on the web site. -- they submitted their concerns to their members of congress.

host: here is a tweet from one of are followers -- guest: well, there is no silver bullet in dealing with the problem of illegal activity on the internet. it is a perpetual issue and there is not going to be one magic solution. i think that the best way for the content community and for the hollywood studios to address the illegal activity on the internet is to ensure that their business models allow for easy, accessible, lawful alternatives to pirated content. history has shown that it takes a little while for the studios to embrace that new technology, but when they do, they actually do better and make more money and provide better consumer products than if they had stopped to those technologies in their tracks. so, for example, historically

speaking, the hollywood studios tried to outlaw cable television because cable television companies were taking over air broadcasts and distributing them to members. they tried a lot the vcr. and they tried to outlaw the ipad. the ironic thing is those three platforms are now three of the biggest revenue-generators for content creators. hollywood makes an enormous amount of money from cable television shows. they make an enormous amount of money from dvd's. and an enormous amount of money from the sale of content through itunes and netflix and amazon and other such platforms. they will eventually embrace the internet and work on lawful solutions to distribute their content, but the solution to ban the internet is not the solution

that will work for them. host: a republican in birmingham, alabama, john. caller: good morning. how are you? guest:. : caller: can you tell me the history of where your cause started and how long ago? guest: i have been an internet and telecom lawyer since the beginning of the commercial internet. the coalition that we work with has been in existence about 10 years. we work on a lot of complicated issues that involve the intersection of public policy and solutions that would regulate the internet for the world wide web. host: what was your group's goal last wednesday for the blackout? guest: not a big role at. we worked hard to educate consumers about what was happening, but the response from consumers was not in our control. that was really an amazing grassroots response to what was happening in washington, d.c.

i think it was a watershed moment and a good day for citizen advocacy. people feel very personal about their internet use. it has become ubiquitous in our lives for commerce, speech, entertainment. when proposals by a select special interest groups are being promoted in a way that does not seem transparent and that could have an impact on the way users experience their internet, last week they showed they will respond and alert their members of congress that they are concerned. in 24 hours when consumers were notifying their members of congress we saw over 50 members of congress to drop off the bills or announced their opposition to sopa and pipa, a pretty remarkable. host: what happens going forward from this coalition of web sites? guest: i hope we are able to engage in dialogue with the content creators, the studios,

the chamber of commerce members. we think that as partners we can address the problem of illegal activity on the internet. we're never going to eradicate illegal activity on the internet just like we cannot eradicate illegal activity in the offline world. but we can come up with smart solutions that don't have the collateral problems of the bills that have been proposed would create. host: are these web sites advocating for the authorities to police themselves? guest: that is a good question. under federal internet policy, beginning with the commercial internet in the mid-1990s, congress made a deliberate decision not to impose liability on internet companies for the content of third parties that were communicating over their systems or posting comments on their systems. congress has always treated internet companies and telephone companies as conduits and have not made them liable for

policing the activities of their users. that is a recognition that there are billions of pieces of data every day. and it is the reason u.s. internet technology companies lead the world, because most of the world does require their internet companies to regulate speech, they don't have a first amendment. because we don't regulate speech of or make internet companies monitor and police user activity, we are able to bring twitter and facebook and other such products to market and allow millions of people to interact with one another if. and twitter and facebook are not responsible for monitoring or policing the activity. so we don't want to change that basic framework. the problem with the proposed legislation last week was that it change that fundamental framework. it would make internet companies liable for the content of their users and make them police activities on their platforms.

i think that kind of intrusiveness and regulation consumers said they don't want to see. host: steve harrison has weighed in on twitter with these comments -- we will go to an independent in s. in caller: i am a military spouse. many of us use the internet for schooling when our husbands are deployed overseas. i want to know, during the blackout there was a lot of content we cannot even access for research for certain documents we needed for school. internet is a big source. my husband fights for our freedom. the first amendment is a big deal. millions and millions of people. it seems like it's not getting any better. i was wondering if the compromise will ever -- whether

we will come down to where it will not affect certain users? host: do you agree with what the web sites like wikipedia and craigslist did last week? caller: i agree 100%, because there's a lot of people who did not know about it. nobody even heard about it. we are trained as military spouses not to watch the news, because our husbands are overseas and we have young children. if i live on post. a lot of the spouses like me did not know about the two bills. when everything finally went down on line, that is how everyone found out about it. host: she is worried any sort of compromise between the two sides would impact our ability and others ability to do research on the internet. guest: we will fight to make sure that does not happen. i think congress got the message loud and clear that should not happen, last week. we want to ensure we are protecting lawful content so

people can engage in research and go on wikipedia and other lawful sites. we will find a way to work with the studios to be alerted of illegal content and figure out ways to address the illegal content. but the caller is right, the proposals in congress were so broad that we could have seen lawful web sites that are used for research disappear from the internet. that was what millions of americans said they did not want to see happen last week. host: susan, an independent in austin, texas. caller: i have mixed feelings. i am a very small internet business in a very small market niche. i have been pirated. my products are up and available for people to access. i receive no money for that. but the pirates do. being an internet business, i cringe at the thought of

government getting involved in this, on the other hand. i am curious about two things. one of them, what do you think about spam alws? and how would you envision being able to address this problem in the least intrusive way? -- spam laws? guest: when someone's content is stolen, it appears on a different website, under current law. the law says the content owner can notify the website and the website is required to expeditiously remove the content so that it is no longer available for theft. we think that system works pretty well. if there are concerns with that system, we are open to having hearings and discussions about what we think the problems are. i think the caller is right. for small companies, it is not as easy to use the legal system

and to figure out how to highlight the theft of their property. i think we have to continue to work to find solutions to help both small owners of property as well as big studios. host: here's a headline from last friday -- how does this work under current law? guest: we have always said current law gives law- enforcement sufficient tools to go after illegal content on the internet. i don't want to prejudge this case. i don't know enough about whether the website was engaged in illegal activity or not. but certainly law-enforcement has broad tools to shut down entire web sites if they believe the entire website is being used

for illegal activity primarily. that is the assertion in the department of justice pleadings. we think that the courts are the right place to explore whether a web site is engaged in illegal content or not. the proposed legislation last week allowed rights holders to buy passage judicial system and upon mere allegation have other stakeholders take down web sites. in some cases without even notifying the web sites that their property is being taken down. whatever system we come up with, ultimately there needs to be an adversarial process, but the accused is able to confront their accuser, to determine whether the web site engaged in illegal activity or not they're not all these cases are easy to determine the legality on their face. viacom has sued youtube. youtube won the case. viacom has appealed. the cases are not easy.

we have to make sure the solutions allow for the accused to defend themselves in court. host: chris jones says the right to intellectual property is granted in a limited sense in the constitution to encourage creative effort. guest: that is right. sometimes policymakers confuse the desire to protect companies from the constitutional mandate. the constitutional mandate does not say we want to protect copyright industry. it says it will grant to offers for a limited time the exclusive rights to their works to promote the full review useful science and art. we give content creators to use and promote their content to incentivize additional content that would be created to benefit society. we could argue the internet itself has promoted arts and science in a way that has been

unprecedented. we have to find a way that balances the interests of all the stakeholders. the constitution does say the rights of copyright owners is limited. the first amendment also limits the ability of copyright owners to exclusively used their works. we allow for things like parity , circulating news clips, and personal use because of the first amendment. host: let's go to a republican in oklahoma. i think he hung up. new york, an independent. caller: i would like to go back to the subject of the dmca. i wrote on a site called blog >>. some of my articles were stolen.

i was able to get material about. it does work fine. i do not think there is a need for anything else. host: explain the process. caller: it is the digital copyright act. you show the content that was still in which jurors originally. you find the host site where the stolen material is being held. they have to tell them to take it down. that is exactly what happened. i did it all on-line. i did not have to write anything, just e-mail. host gator was the site posting

it. they contacted me saying the site was down and everything was ok again. i have one more thing to ask. as a personal blogger, i bring up other articles and post them. if this were to come to pass, would i be charged with pirating? would i be considered a thief for posting different articles and things i have read on digg? guest: i am glad to hear the caller was able to use current law. the caller was referring to the digital millennium copyright act. a user whose content is being stolen can contact the website where they see the content. the website is required under

the law to expeditiously remove the content. they notify the person who posted it to say that if you believe the content was posted lawfully, you can let us know. then the website is required to repost the content. it creates a system where the accuser and accused can fight it out to determine the legality of the content. host: how does an artist get the money back that is lost when their music is stolen from another website? guest: the artist always has the ability to sue an in for injured -- infringer. an artist can claim damages of $150,000 for the willful stealing and 99 cents on. the reason we see such big

numbers in litigation where a company was sued for $1 million in copyright infringement is because when you start adding those songs, you can get to major damages alleged against a site. the framework does provide a lot of robust protections for users. the query about whether unlawful content like news clips she is circulating also brings up another point. she does that pursuant to the fair use exception to the copyright act that is based on the first amendment. we want to protect that framework. sometimes in the debates with the content industry, they mistake their ability to have exclusive rights to the content with the ability to exclusively controlled distribution -- control distribution.

under the law, they do not have the right to control that in all cases. host: mike is in st. louis. caller: last week craigslist shutdown. they posted their little bill pertaining to the law. they said they were concerned about losing their free speech. but it is ok for craigslist on their political board to block posters. i was posting on the political board. another poster was losing the debate to me constantly over three or four years. this guy starts attacking me. craigslist blocked me from posting totally.

i cannot even respond to people who have one chance -- want ads with things for sale. is this a violation of my first amendment right? guest: free-speech is one of the strongest kind of content protected under the constitution. the difference is when we're talking in the government blocking free speech, it triggers a the government protection. a private user has the ability to decide not to display content if they believed it violates the terms of service or for other reasons. if you do not like that kind of activity from that website, you can go to another one. those are entirely regulated by the free market system. the concern becomes one week of

the government deciding what content will and will not be posted. host: here is a tweet. it is referring to some news chris dodd made with fox. he said those who count on hollywood for support need to understand the industry is watching carefully and will stand up for them when their job is at stake. guest: i think it is an unfortunate comment. policy-makers would disavow themselves of that comment. we hope the debate is not about money or influence but is a debate on the merits. last week, we saw that it was. host: are they putting their

money where their mouth is in terms of a lobbying effort to keep congress in their corner on this issue? guest: it has been famous written that the tech community spends more time innovating than they do try to influence members of congress. they do not spend near the amount of money that the motion picture association does to lobby members of congress. the issue is one not of money or inside washington influence but whether the proposals are once the strike the right balance. the wonderful thing about what happened last week is that last week was a clear indication that a backroom deal outside of public view is not going to be able to happen in this space. it will have to happen in a way that is very public, in the sunlight. that is a very good thing.

host: john is in jupiter, fl orida. caller: i am hearing all these negatives about piracy and everything else. it's talk about piracy as pertains to the music and movie industry. the industry wants to charge you over and over again for the same license. every time there is a medium change, they want to charge for the same material again and again. if not for piracy, we would be paying $50 a movie and $10 a song. guest: the copyright laws give the content community exclusive rights to their works. they get to determine how to market the products and the cost. history has shown when they come up with a business model that allows users to continue the access works at a price point

that is affordable and attractive, it becomes a win-win for the studio, content creators, and user community you and seen that with dvd's ipod's. the studios need to be less fearful of the internet and embrace it as something that can be an incredible platform for distribution to a worldwide audience in unprecedented ways. we are going to see an unprecedented amount of innovation where you are going to be able to watch movies and interact with users technical community as he watched the movie. moving watching will go from a one-way passive experience to an interactive two-we experience for those who wanted. we will see new and innovative

ways to watch movies. that should enable the hollywood community to revitalize the archived content. you can watch "casa blog a" and interact with a worldwide audience. -- you can watch "casablanca" and in direct with a worldwide audience as you do. i hope we will look at this as an attractive medium for the content community to reach new users and existing users in new and innovative ways. that will happen based on looking at the historical cycles of innovation and content creators. host: if you are asking for a compromise in sitting down with the chamber of commerce and chris dodd is now the head of the motion picture association, when does this happen?

guest: we have had some conversations with members of congress in recent weeks. there is no plan for a meeting at this point. we continue to provide alternative legislation and drafts and three works. we continue to sit at the table. we are ready for them to engage with us as partners to solve the problem. host: which members of congress are trying to facilitate the conversation? guest: a lot of members want to be part of the solution. we have this artificial deadline of a vote in the senate tomorrow that has now been postponed. it did not make for an easy negotiating session with that kind of deadline. removing the artificial deadline is a good thing. it allows us to sit down and a more deliberate way. host: scott is a republican in oklahoma. caller: i am kind of ignorant on

this. i did not know about it until google was blacked out and then figure out what was going on. everything we are talking about is illegal piracy. it is illegal, why do we need more laws? we have laws on the books address illegal immigration and illegal policy. why do we need more laws if it is already illegal? host: the advocates of the legislation say millions of dollars are being lost by movies and music being pirated and sold on illegal websites. caller: there is a law that you cannot break into my house and still my property. people still do it. if they do it, i have to go through the avenues.

and i do not understand why if it is illegal why we need more laws to address something that is already illegal. guest: that is exactly right. it is not the right solution. we are supportive of trying to look at whether there are gaps in current laws. regulating the internet to deal with the problem is not the way to go. working with the rights owners to distribute content lawfully is a better approach. host: coming up, our weekly segment with a look at juvenile justice programs. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> european union nations have adopted an oil embargo against iran as part of sanctions over the nuclear program. the british foreign secretary called the measure part of an unprecedented set of sanctions.

he added that he thinks he shows this to resolve of the european union on the issue. iran says the nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. many international officials are afraid the country is trying to develop nuclear weapons. iranian officials tell before news agency that if the embargo is implemented, they will definitely close the strait of hormuz through which 1/5 of the world's crude oil flows. a new study finds some states have made big funding cuts in the higher education programs. a steady at illinois state university says 41 states cut education spending over the past year by $6 billion or nearly 8%. the states that made the most cuts were arizona, wisconsin, and the louisiana. the only nine states reported increases in higher education spending. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span media.

[video clip] >> i have never felt more strongly that the best days lie ahead. we are a powerful force for. . we can perform great deeds and take freedom's next step. we will carry on the tradition of a good and worthy people who have brought light were there was darkness, medicine where there was a disease, who were there was under -- hunger, and peace were there was only budget. let us be sure that those of us -- those who come after us will say that we did everything we could to be done. we finished the race. we kept them free. we kept the faith. >> you can find a state of the union address is going back to 1952 online -- the state of the union address is going back to 1952 online.

it is washington, your way. for more resources in the presidential race, use the campaign 2012 web site to watch videos of the candidates, see what they have said on issues that are important to you, and read the latest from social media sites. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we put a spotlight on the federal program with a special focus on the participants and how much it costs in taxpayer dollars. today we look at money if the justice department spends on juvenile justice programs. we're joined by catherine gallagher, a professor of law at georgetown university. i want to begin with the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention.

guest: i am at george mason university. i wanted to clarify that. the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention is in the office of justice programs. it is based in the department of justice. it oversees the research arms of the department of justice. the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention is concerned with juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. it is a result of the act from 1974. that is how it got its authorization and start. it is currently acting without reauthorization.

it is funded without mandate. it is a little peculiar. they are very much hoping for reauthorization. to continue leadership in the area. host: how much does it grant to states? guest: it has different mechanisms for granting funding to states. the prime mechanisms are the title to programs. they also have the title fight programs -- title five and accountability block programs. what is being funded in the 2012 appropriations is really only the title tune of -- title two

funding in the block grant funding. that currently amounts to a near $70 million. the office of juvenile justice provision put these statistics together for 2011. the total was $3 and 93.5 million. -- was $393.5 million. we may be working with slightly different numbers. the numbers i have are slightly different. ofre talking about hundreds millions total. we can stick to that broad framework. the title two programs of the main mechanism -- are the main

mechanism to help states mean the -- meet the main requirements of how to protect and house youths in custody. they are formula programs. they're based on state population and service needs. they are meant to help the states meet basic core requirements which came about through the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act. you do not want the kids who have been charged with a status offense. that means they have run away or have been through other things that are not criminal for adults. the program allows states to get funding to meet that requirement. it also gives them on in to meet the requirement of trying to find -- keeping youth separate

from adults in facilities. if they are in the same facilities, there will be sight and sound separation. it has a provision that encourages states, requires states to have a plan to deal with disproportionate minority contact. the state needs to have a plan that tells the federal government how they are dealing with the issues of disproportionate minority contact. this money goes to states able to meet the requirements. the trickle down through monitors who oversee the disbursement of the funds. the states have to meet the requirements in order to keep getting money. it is tricky right now.

the money has been reduced substantially. the funding in fiscal year 2002 was about $90 million. this year, is about $40 million under title two. host: here is a headline about juvenile crime been down since the early 1990's. does it correlate that the money should go down if juvenile crime has decreased? guest: that is an excellent question. juvenile crime has decreased. these funds are not necessarily for the prevention. it is for how we treat kids once they have been arrested and are in the system.

we have succeeded in reducing crime, but this is about meeting basement standards of treating these children in a way that is safe and prevents truant offenders from being locked up. it is not the same thing as saying we've solved the crime problem. it is saying that when the kids are in the system, we keep a basement level standard. if we lower the amount of funding, which offers states we do we offer a states. incentives for meeting -- we offer the states fewer incentives for meeting basement standards. host: is most of the money delivered on a population formula? does it always correlate with a

crime rate? guest: it does not always correlate with the crime rate. every state is like its own country. the crime rate will very --vary from state to state. the way states respond will vary even within a state. one state will lock up kids for certain offenses. another state will not. we do not see a direct correlation in how the states process kids. we also do not see systematic correlation with how they put kids into facilities or keep them in the community. there has been no real formula as says -- that says we want this proportion. there is something that is like

a little kid prison. it is not cute. they have razor wire and all that. for every youth in lockup, you could say you want to 50 being monitored in the community. we see further variations across the field in terms of that proportion to the rate of arrest. we also see variation in terms of the self-reported crime involvement and the subsequent arrest rate. if we go from the adolescent population at risk to the arrest rate, process re-, community supervision rate, to the facility rate, we see no stability in the proportion.

every state is its own country. host: catherine gallagher is our guest from george mason university. we're talking about juvenile justice programs as part of our weekly look at how taxpayer dollars are being spent. the u.s. conference of mayors have their annual visit in washington last week. we covered many of the events. the los angeles mayor talked about how their community goes about preventing and reducing gang violence. [video clip] >> intervention refers to the idea of building an exit ramp for those who are already gang- involved. we do use former gang members who have become certified,

trained, bigger-printed, and hired through the city of delhi to help us with law enforcement -- through the city of l.a. to help us with law enforcement to engage with those who are most likely to be victims of or perpetrators of violence. host: how does the discussion into our discussion about juvenile justice grants? guest: at the federal level, it has little to do with it at the moment. that is a tragedy. the money that could support a program like that is usually going through the title five grants to states to encourage local dbase programs -- locally based programs for prevention of

juvenile crime. that has been wiped out of the budget completely. there are $0 to prevent a program like that. in the past, we have seen reasonable funding. in 2002, we saw a $95 million that would support states with a plan to allow l.a. for example to develop the program. we have no money coming from the federal government this year. caller: i established a foundation called the vicky foundation. i am not backed by a large organizations of funding is hard. i would like to know how to apply for the commission to grant.

i'm just an individually established foundation. i have no corporation behind me. how would i apply for a grant -- a community granted? my foundation deals with bullying and use end abusive relationships. guest: unfortunately, there is no money to support this kind of program. if there had been money, there are different ways to qualify and there are different requests or proposals that are put out through publicly available web sites, caller. at the moment, the foundations are taking up the slack. we have seen decreases in the federal commitment, we have seen real upticks in the foundation world. the mccarthy foundation has release stepped in and put in what i think it's up to about

$100 million towards these sort of programs that can be leaders for the field and contest -- can test new models for change. right now, you are out of luck. but that is not to say there are not other avenues. as an individual or as a non- profit, the money is few and far between. host: we have an independent from los angeles, good morning. caller: it has been my experience here in america that people are a reflection of the country itself. advertising works. when i look of the children today who are considered police, they are a -- are --bullies, they are a reflection of the country itself and how will look

at advertisement, there will be juvenile delinquents who are not going to fall into that program and will wind up in jail. yet, there's enough money and not for the programs -- for the programs to lock these children up or build military weapons. guest: most of our money right now is really maintaining the basement level of standard. it does nothing for prevention. we recognize bullying with strong evidence to be problematic for the victim and the community. as we decrease our federal investment, we slip across these

different dimensions. that means that not only the quantity of contact will have but the quality of contact for it when we talk about incarceration for these huge, it means we have fewer incentives to provide a safe place where they will not further get victimized. it also means we have your standards and fewer incentives to meet those standards host: you said there is enough funding for the basic standard. the guidelines for the federal government or what? guest: currently -- i think this is a great frustration with the field and researchers as well -- the ability to provide guidelines squarely within the purview of ojgdp, the guidelines that we would hope to see and the leadership we would hope to have has not realized

any real guidelines. the guidelines we have our basement guidelines. real guidelines come out of the court system. it has been the court's who have determined what is ok to do and what kids we can lock up and where we can lock them up and for what sanctions. it is a case by case carving out of ways for states to comply. because the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention has been hobbled by lack of authorization, a lack of funding, an inability to take symbolic and practical leadership, we are not seeing any real embarrassment of standards and guidelines that the field can really get their hands around. host: democratic caller in great falls, va., go ahead caller: i just want to say that i am 20 years old and i go to college.

when i was younger, i mean five years younger, i went to boarding school. i started smoking marijuana when i was 13 years old. i went to therapeutic 40 school in utah. -- boarding school in utah. i have seen the private and of this realm, the institutional causation of kids my age and younger and older and with older kids it was pretty difficult. i just want to get your viewpoint on the private realm of this whole industry like therapeutic boarding schools that caused a lot of money that is not covered by insurance that

a lot of the therapeutic staff will convince the parents that their kids are more sick and have a chronic situation that will kill them. guest: this is a really important piece of what the juvenile justice system looks like. it is not a tidy network of government-owned and operated systems that are predictable across states. it is a really loose way to formulate a network of facilities. it is a patchwork of government systems at the state and local levels and also private facilities and that is a big part of juvenile justice which is the private ownership and operation of juvenile justice facilities and their parallel facility environment. he is referring to an entire cottage industry. cottage industry may not be the right word.

young people who are on the margins between needing residential therapeutic treatment and who are on the margins of being in the juvenile justice system are sent away to these forestry programs and the like and these private programs are even less well regulated and less well monitored. reportre's a reason toao that -- there is a recent gao report that talks about these programs and we have seen an enormous number of deaths and mistreatment. he points out that in this particular industry which is both government and private, we see actually that the private facilities are the ones who are less likely to meet standards. that is an irony because we like to think of private as being a

little bit more treatment- oriented and perhaps therapeutic and that is simply not the case. host: air republican in florida, you are next. caller: in the adult system, it seems apparent for some populations that it is safer when people are incarcerated for either homicide or a drug overdose. is the same pattern be found in the juvenile system? guest: if i understand the question correctly, is incarceration helpful for juvenile stacs? when juvenile have contact with the system, that contact can add some benefit in the long run but primarily contact with the juvenile justice system particularly in the facility

environment is detrimental not just at the time the youth is locked up for the rest of their life. it has a long and profound and lasting impact on the life of these kids and the lives of their children that they will inevitably have. we see it not just immediately upon their time in the facility but upon release where they are more likely to die post-release and we see that they're more likely to have health status problems later in life and have children who have problems. anyone who thinks that locking kids out to provide them with any safety benefits above what they would have seen in the community, it would be wise to think differently. host: what is the repeat offender rate? guest: the rule of thumb in behavioral sciences is the past predicts the future most kids, almost all carrots, will be

involved in the leg and behavior. -- -- most kids, almost all kids, will be involved in illicit behavior. kids on average and will either drop out naturally by the time they become adults but the ones it isntinue to lovandoffend, higher for the kids who have been officially sanctioned and institutionalized. i would put up there between the 60% and 80%. host: here is a tweet -- what is the correlation between juvenile crime and unemployment rates. ? guest: that is a tricky one. if we are talking about

unemployment more universally, community unemployment is directly linked to community incarceration rates. it is not good for the community. that does not mean that communities with high unemployment rates necessarily have a high incarceration rate. many are brazilian and are able to use their strength to overcome this. -- many are resilience and are able to use their strength to overcome this. a lack of legitimate sources of funding is one additional strike against them very complexities that they deal with in addition to the quality of education and the problems of getting to school and the lack of health care and the lack of social services, the fact that their parents are either under- employed or over-employed meaning they are working many jobs, presents an environment where children who are not positioned to succeed have even more obstacles. to obstacles

host: republican from florida -- caller: if you are familiar with david kennedy and his programs that started around 70 cities originally in boston where they set up programs cooperative with the police department to go into the gang- riddled areas and interplay with the gang members, the families, the police -- it is almost like if you take the surge in the iraq war and how they got into communities and generated response from the individuals. they interacted with the people and it reduces the amount of crime and the amount of gang killings and so on.

children from 6-24 who are constantly getting thrown into prison, i would like to hear your comments and how that interplays with what other organizations are doing. guest: yes, i am familiar with david kennedy's work. he has developed pulling levers program which allows community to come together with stakeholders who are across faith and governments and communities to make decisions about how to best prevent use of violence like firearm violence. david kennedy and others who promotes these programs are wildly successful. our organization in addition to being in the criminology society program, also have a group where

our mission is to make sure the most rigorous evidence gets into policy. as of yet, we have not quite see in the level of rigor to evaluate these programs to make sure that in fact they are the ones we should replicate. that does not mean they are not worthy added doesn't mean that they're not as effective as the early evidence suggests. it means we are not quite as confident at this moment that this is where our money should be put. the thing that is really attractive about these programs is the last communities to use their assets and strings -- instead of being a detriment and a punitive response, it allows communities to organize and make and democratize their own decisions about how to spend their resources and how to change the promises they think are affecting their lives.

there is legislation in the works the youth promise act that was written and offered by rep in the third district of virginia that actually follows the model very much like this. by creating promise councils, it allows community leaders to come together and take responsibility for what it is they want to change within some parameters of it being data driven and based on promising promise -- programs. we have a mechanism for release -- realizing programs like this. as of yet, but cosigners are failing to reappear. we are waiting, i suppose, for the universal support of this piece of legislation. host: let me add this --

catherine, democratic caller, caller: i have never called before. i'm calling with a different story. by for what in brentwood, calif.. my father was a physician and i was a debutante and got pregnant. they immediately made me a ward of the court, my parents did. i was locked up at six-months pregnant. juvenile hall was a horrific experience for me. they moved into the infirmary because juvenile hall was brazil. -- was brutal. they want me to be safe and i did not belong there. the system later moved me to

booth memorial hospital to complete my pregnancy and that was funded by the government combined with the salvation army. and then i continued after my pregnancy to a wealthy girls' private school on the east coast. i am now 63 years old and my experience in juvenile hall has remained with me for all these years. i came from a very affluent family and i am wondering how you feel or how these people should be treated? i do not promote incarceration. host: her experience at juvenile hall and how these kids should be treated -- guest: i will address it from

the point that this is a young woman who was pregnant when she was placed in juvenile hall. this is not an unfamiliar situation. recent estimates we have had in our national data collection showed that about 30% of facilities who have girls have at least one girl was known to be pregnant. the corresponding access to prenatal care either in the facility or the community is nowhere near that number. when we know the kids who are pregnant really cannot be served in the facilities and they don't have a lot of other places to go. when we are not meeting their healthcare needs or the health care needs of the prenatal health care needs of these girls either. is it ever a good idea to lock up a kid?

rarely is it a good idea to lock up a kid. there are plenty of alternatives to what we call the attention which looks like a jail for kids. by no means does that mean they are any less scary. we also have a long-term secure facilities. there are plenty of other options. there are shelters and residential treatment centers and if done right, they can provide a safe haven for these young people particularly young people or going to be parents. being a parent is more the norm than the exception for the boys and girls in the system. we know that their ability to become the kind of parents that their children need is so slim and it is so sad. you heard in this caller's voice, this is something that stuck with her for the rest of her life. even though it represented a

certain piece of time, is profound and lasting and the fact -- and the effect will be profound and lasting. you should never have a pregnant young woman locked up for punitive reasons. that does not mean that young boys are not equally protected. i don't mean to be unfair to the boys but putting a young person in the lockup like that especially during such a critical juncture in their life is a horrible idea and it has horrible outcomes. host: debbie is a republican in houston, texas, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i became an insider to the juvenile system. when a kid got into trouble,

they went in front of the judge and the judge gave them an option -- either go to jail or you go to the military. under the circumstances today, the federal government has no more money and we cannot support programs that belong in the state pocketbooks' started we need to come up with the right message which is counselors in schools that have psychological background to help these kids because they are not coming in from homes are foundations. they need programs. they need extra learning. they need to be encouraged to get away from the non- curricular and maybe tap their credibility is. we have paddled our children. guest: well, it would be great for high school-based programs and would be great to have

better assessment of needs and assets act and better ways to protect -- to predict risk but our problem is getting these kids to school. if we could get into school and have them feel as if this school work a place that could actually lead to a positive end verses a place where you don't feel safe getting to him, much less safe beating, we still have a long way to go just to get the men the doors. host: there's a debate on twitter with our viewers -- a democrat in virginia, go ahead. caller: imi longtime cspan -- i like watching c-span. i suggested to a lot of my friends and the people i bump into when i'm out shopping and i will tell them that cspan is a

great program. host: thank-you. caller: why don't they start a program instead of locking up these young kids and putting them in jail -- put them in a company that is building concentration camps for young kids 3. . on when's' was going franklin roosevelt were in and they did a lot of work. they should round up these dropouts looking for a job. they don't like going to school but they taken in these camps and now they lock the mob and a big industry is building prisons and contained in places where these young kids are an awful lot of them would like to have a job or they are making money.

they could also give them their ged education to get a high- school diploma. guest: i not certain i up entirely understood the question. i can enter the best i can so the idea would be to take kids who are either in for lock up and put that into more skill- building, the work projects programs like golden our infrastructure and utilities and what have you. we have had a lot of experiences and a lot of experiments with trying to bring industry into correctional environments to either train and get future employees out of this experience. if we can make a simple idea which is supported by the evidence fairly well that all things being equal, people would

prefer to be gainfully employed rather than being block top and that -- being blocked off and skill building is a great way to spend one's time. the other side is that the abuses are there and ready to be made by corporations and are only done to protect our own interests and the kind of exploitation. if industry can provide the proper training and successfully move them into jobs, that is the problem we are seeing. the might of the trend but they cannot get them into the jobs. there is so many state problems on the adult level but if you're of a conviction, it is harder for you to get housing, a job, a loan, to vote. that would be a wonderful thing ports making them valuable members of our society. host: here is another tweet --

west virginia, go ahead. caller: i would like to know why the people in the united states should pay to have a juvenile program. when i was growing up, there was a juvenile program called parents. guest: that is an excellent point. the people in united states at the federal level, are not paying that much money. it really comes down to about 2 cents per day per adolescents child . this is a microscopic pimmit they are making at the federal level. the state level is where we see the bills come in. you are right, where are the parents? in many cases, many of the programs that can be supported

by things like the promise act are there for skill-building for the parents to help them be better parents. it is thinking about the developmental periods of early childhood. that has changed drastically. there are different distinct developmental periods with kids and parents need to be of better able to monitor those areas to make sure the kids are meeting their mark. it is partly true that it is really hard to be a good parent. host: we will have to live there but thank you for talking to our viewers. let me and where we began this morning, talking about governors and how they are handling the economy is and what they have talked about in their state of the state addresses. we have been covering them and showing them.

tonight, a handful of the state of the state addresses will air on c-span 2 at 9:00 p.m. we will start with the mayor of new york city, mayor bloomberg, and go through the list on your screen. for more information, go to c- span.org. tune in tomorrow night to our coverage of the president's state of the union address at 8:00 p.m. and his speech will start at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. if bank ever watching today and that does it for today's "washington journal." caller: hos[captioning performey national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]