of la raza talks about the immigration debate in florida and the role of hispanics in the 2012 election. later, todd harrison from the center for strategic and budgetary -- reviews equipment and personnel cuts in the budget for the navy. "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: welcome to "washington journal" this monday, january 30. president obama meets with the president of the republic of georgia this afternoon. later on the president and first lady will host a reception for the foreign diplomatic corps. this evening the president will do an interview with youtube and google-plus, as his staff bills it as the first completely virtual interview for the white house. the race for the nomination for the president heats up in a florida. both mitt romney and newt gingrich have rallies there

today. a question for you this morning as you look at the republican field -- which candidate do you most relate to. which one shares your values or personal stories. who do you connect with? here are the numbers to call -- you can also e-mail us at journal@c-span.org -- we will take a look at the latest in the republican primary race but let us first look at the "washington post was " styles section. past presidents, how they were perceived. it starts out saying americans don't mind their candidates' being rich, as long as they have the common touch.

americans love a self-made man and tend to be suspicious of those born with money. that is listen what our callers have to say. columbus, ohio. i democrats' line. caller: i am calling to say i don't relate to any of the candidates, including president obama. i have a question for c-span -- why doesn't c-span ever talk about the gun violence in america these days. we have a whole bunch of pictures of governor gifford, but we did not hear what happens. she was shot but there were five or six other people who died. there was a little girl who died, she was 9 years old, two 80-year old ladies died. we have a problem in this country. you know, president obama, you know, he never goes into the poor neighborhoods. he never speaks about poor people policy issues.

and they never mention gun violence. they will take a whole bunch of pictures with governor giffords -- host: former congresswoman. caller: former congressman. we have a problem all over the country. every city in the country having problems with young people, guns, children being shot, seniors being shot, and we don't hear anything from washington. it is just a mess. afghanistan's -- when president bush was president, c-span always had something on iraq. now that president obama is present, you don't hear anything about afghanistan, about all the reserve is going to afghanistan. reserves are made for emergencies. they aren't made to go over there and defend afghanistan. i mean, come on, americans, we are better than this. we have better candidates out there.

any of the candidates -- democrats or republicans -- the american people are way better than these candidates. have a good week, everybody. host: you might be interested on the q&a that just ran on c-span that deals with some of the foreign international issues. let us go to another caller. in new jersey. dee joins us on the democrats' line. so, which candidate do you most relate to? caller: as an african-american, i have to say unfortunately i don't really relate to any of them. and it is not because they are not african-american. bill clinton was not african- american and i voted for him. i voted for jimmy carter. i think the problem is i don't think that any of these candidates have any idea what it is like to be black in this country. and unfortunately, the republican primary voter seems

to be so susceptible to this sort of clause 5-racist talk about food stamps -- quiasi- rasist talk about food stamps that -- it is almost as if they cannot speak to black people because somehow it would turn off the primarily white conservative evangelical voter. and i find that the sort of sad and disturbing in a way. and as for the last caller who talked about in the president's -- or national politicians not speaking on gun violence, i would say he needs to talk to his local politicians, his city council member, his state representative and state senator. it is important as we engage in the political process that we remain connected to those races

as well. it is not just about president and congress. it is also about local elections as well. we ought to remain engaged in the process from top to bottom. host: let's go to a tweet that comes into us -- let's go to our next call. jay, independent line from springfield, missouri. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? i am doing just fine. and thank you for taking my call. i am an elderly gentleman. of the first campaign i was involved with was for barry goldwater in 1964. that gives you an idea as to my age. i can't help but make a rather sad observation. i had been a republican most of my life. i officially changed my registration to independent during bush ii's administration.

and that was primarily for economic reasons, or fiscal reasons. and i can't help but make the observation that it seems that the republican establishment seems to be bound and determined to anoint a moderate republican for the white house. and i can't help but notice that whenever the republican establishment does this, the republicans lose. george h. w. bush came into the oval office writing on reagan's coattails as a conservative, but conducted himself as a moderate. ran for re-election as a moderate republican and loss. and in 1996, the republicans annointed bob dole, ran him as a republican moderates, and he lost. john mccain, who i know

personally -- i am are originally from arizona -- won the nomination as a conservative but then the rnc ran him as a moderate republican in the lost. and it makes me sad that the republican establishment seems to be bound and determined it to anoints another moderate. it to me, that is a recipe for failure. and i am just sad to see that. host: thank you for your call. let's take a look at "of the palm beach post."

let's hear a clip from "meet the pressed" on nbc. a historian talking about how candidates are relatable. [video clip] >> each one of those men had something in their lives that allowed them to connect. teddy roosevelt had gone to the west as a cowboy. he was in the rough riders. fdr had polio, which took him out of the privileged life and allowed it to connect. jfk had been in world war ii. the problem with romney is maybe he has had the experience of but they certainly did not show when he says i want to make a 10,000 out of that or i only made

$224,000 in speaking fees, or i like firing people. it shows that somehow his life experience has not collected -- connected and and but that it. we don't care of people are wealthy but what matters is if they can understand our problems. host: "meet the press" thursday. asking which candidate on the republican field value most feel connected to. whether their personal narratives or their stories or their family values, morals, or their political position. do you feel like you connect to one candidate over the other. edward from miami, florida on the independent line. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i can't really vote for any of them, but as far as connecting with one of them, i could connect sumwalt with newt gingrich. he has a grand ideas. but as far as romney, he is a

corporate raider. santorum is so weak. an ron paul scares me. this guide has ideas that are just too radical. host: you are in florida. you said you did not feel you can vote for any the candidates. are you sitting out on primary day? caller: i am not going to vote for any. host: let's go to illinois. ernest on the democrats' line. caller: hello, good morning? host: where are you calling from? caller: bolingbrook, illinois. i and not addressing exactly the question as far as republicans though, but as far as relating to the candidate, barack obama would have to be the one. he came from basically humble beginnings. and he achieved great success by his own initiative and drive. he rose to the highest office of the land.

and with character, honesty, integrity. not to say that these other guys don't reflect some american values, but, i mean, when you are making $60,000 a day, how can you mess that up? how can you screw that up? i would say barack obama emphasizes all the character traits that we look for in a leader. thank you for taking my call. host: let's look at a story coming to us from "the wall street journal."

lake oswego, oregon. andy, a democrat. caller: the article kind of speaks to what i was thinking. i think mitt romney of the candidates has the sort of character you can look at and say, pretty solid human being. and i also think that if he was more forthright in supporting his own record over the years, which has been as one of the conservative callers said moderate, he would probably have a much broader appeal in the independent ranks and even the democrats' ranks. i did not think i would actually vote for him, but there are many things he has done where i look at and say those are transportable.

i think he is kind of a smart leader that could make good things happen in this country if he was elected. host: a piece in the sunday review of "the new york times" this morning. she believes newt gingrich might go down as history as the politician who conclusively proves that voters don't care about a candidate's sexual misbehavior. noting that conservative candidates are supporting him and getting behind him to some degree in various states, including south carolina. this is a different take, which really ties into one of the last callers said. he did an interview with david brody from the christian broadcasting network in tampa.

let's go to north carolina where john joins us on our independent line. good morning. caller: how are you this morning? host: and they do you most relate to? caller: i don't really think i can relate to any of them under the conditions that the political process is in right now. probably newt gingrich more than anybody. i think obama is very unqualified and i did not even want to go into that. host: what is it about newt gingrich? his personal life, what he does politically? caller: basically i think the man does have experience inside the beltway and unfortunately in these days and times you need that. whether he could actually bring people together as he did with

people -- clinton and working with a democrat, i don't know if that is even possible any more with the nature -- just the whole climate of things, the vitriol and all the other stuff. i want to make one quick comment, if i could, and it is not directly related to this. i want people to understand that this mortgage foreclosure situation that is going on, there are thousands and thousands of people who are still in their homes that have been paying on their homes for years and years and years but they are just sitting there under this modification not paying any payments, not attempting to pay any payments, and all of these are toxic assets that are just sitting there that no one is doing -- and i know two people personally in their homes over 18 months and have not even attempted to make a payment. and i think it is ridiculous that obama has turned around, and now he has redone the home modification thing and

everything else. that has got a lot to do with our economy. i mean, george bush i let a lot of this but just the wellhead and roll into a toxic acid and wiped off the board and it just seems like this is just going on and on. when is this ever going to stop? host: let's look at an article that relates to something you are talking about. this is from npr's "morning edition," 8 piece they have done.

turning the page, scott simon, who heads the mortgage-backed security team at the giant bond trading and investment company pimco says they are shocked they did this. at a couple of other news stories right now, the occupy protesters blamed police for oakland turmoil. the conflict right now relating to the occupy protests.

looking at the occupy situation from washington, d.c. our question for you this morning is about the field for the republican nomination for president. which candidate do you most relate to? let's hear from a florida

caller. vero beach. angela calls on the republican line. caller: thank you. i would like to say that the candidate i most relate to is newt gingrich because i believe he is the only one that can restore deprived that we had in this country when ronald reagan was president. host: we just read a story if you months ago about a decline in women supporting him, according to polls. angela, what do you think about that? caller: i did not think it is necessarily true. in south carolina he won the women's vote and he will also here. i think it is not so much a question -- i do not, in fact, agree with his personal life. but at this point, we are in so much of a critical stage in this country that we have to look aside, we have to believe that

people repents and are sorry for their behavior. we all have had instances in their lives of things that we regret. but i think the bigger picture is he is a true conservative and the assaults that have been here in florida, we have witnessed the assault, obviously what he experienced in iowa, and what i am afraid about what romney is, romney has really insulted him, his past has come out, his personal life, he is the one who began the negativity in this campaign, but yet he is the same one who will not call president obama is socialist. this is not a key to winning. he is destroying his fellow republicans, and yet it goes with kid gloves against obama. this is not a thing that is

going to get a win. host: what do you think about some of the negative ads against mitt romney? caller: i don't think they are the greatest, either, but they are not as devastating as the ones that have come out. it is not just mitt romney, but it is the republican establishment that has come out against newt gingrich. they have told us -- as one of the callers said, they have put up all losers. and i have the control. and i don't know if i am going to stay republican if romney becomes the nominee because i think then we were going to lose again and it makes me wonder why the republican establishment is the wind is accept that they do not want to listen to the will of the people, and it is the government established by the will of the people. host: have you done early voting or will you vote tomorrow? caller: i will vote tomorrow. host: let's take a look at a campaign ad for mitt romney, this is called for the families, attacking newt gingrich.

[video clip] >> while florida families lost everything and housing crisis, newt gingrich cashed in. he was paid over $1.6 million from the same agency that helped create the crisis. been offered my advice as a historian. there really? sanctions for ethics violations, gingrich resigned in disgrace and then cashed in as a d.c. insider. if newt gingrich wins, this guy would be very happy. >> i mitt romney and i approve this message. host: richard on the independent line. weighing in on which candidate he most relates to. caller: definitely ron paul. he is the one who is going to give the country back to the people, the power. this election is actually about will the power remain with the establishment republican and democrat party is or back to the people, back to the constitution. this entanglement we have in

wars that are actually corporate wars. there is no objective anymore. it just seems like we are killing people and spending a lot of money for what reason. i spent a lot of time in the military and the military people right now support ron paul. mitt romney cannot be elected. this guy has been on the left side of abortion, gun control, and his health plan is the same thing that president obama has installed with the obamacare. so, when the media gets ahold of that, it will make him look like a fool. the republicans, as usual -- i agree with the earlier caller who said they seem to go with a moderate. actually >> mitt romney as more of a progressive. host: you outline why you are not keen on the other candidates, but is there something about ron paul personally you relate to?

caller: yes. he has always kept the same philosophy about his politics. the constitution will protect us when the parties get too far away from it. it is the direction we are moving right now. the president right now who is basically a global marxists. you go back to the constitution and the power goes back to the people. host: let's go to an e-mail agrees with you -- he talked about the fact that newt gingrich and mitt romney are both in florida right now. they are holding rallies today and c-span will be there to bring those to you. you can go to c-span.org for

more information about the details, where to get to the candidate, and how to tune in. newt gingrich will do a rally at 2:00 p.m. and so will mitt romney. we will be following them on the trail. let's look at some -- where some of the other candidates are. ron paul is not focusing his efforts on florida. here is a story from abc news. he heads west next week to campaign in the early voting states of colorado and nevada. looking at rick santorum, the fourth candidate, one of the survivors of the campaigns of thus far. he had to bail out of an interview yesterday on "meet the press" due to the help of his

daughter. but here is what "the washington times" says. his daughter is better and the midwest is next. let's go to paul, a republican joining us from chicago. caller: how are you doing? of the choices, i like newt gingrich because he sets up a dialectic in the republican party that forces mitt romney to come out of his shell. and i think that is what we really need as a choice this year. host: do you relate to him?

caller: i relate to him, yes. i would never vote for him. i do not think he is a presidential material. but he is a foil because he is bringing the running out of his shell. host: you appreciate the dialogue he is lending to the conversation, the fact he is keeping things going, sort of what sarah palin was saying she hoped would happen. caller: yes. obama would have to come out of this just -- shell and mitt romney would not have had to, official except for newt gingrich. i think mitt romney has a chance of becoming another fdr. he has to be within the establishment to take it on. i think i am beginning to trust his sense of that, and to become another fdr, he could be one of the best presidents ever. host: let's look at another campaign ad from the newt gingrich team, this is against mitt romney and it asks what kind of man. [video clip] >> if a man is dishonest to

obtain a job he will be dishonest on a job. but what kind of man would mislead, distort, and see just to win an election? this man would. mitt romney. romney said he has always voted republican when he had the opportunity. but in the 1992 massachusetts primary, mitt romney had the chance to vote for george h. w. bush or pat buchanan but he voted for a liberal democrat instead. mitt romney said his investments in fannie and freddie were in a blind trust but it is reported in "the national journal" that mitt romney are the tens of thousands of dollars of investments not in a blind trust. he denied seeing a false at his campaign used to attack newt gingrich but romney's own campaign paid for the ad and romney's own voice is on the ad approving the false content. if we can't trust what mitt romney says about his own record, how can we trust him on anything? host: paid for by the newt2012

campaign, and at contract -- attacking his main competitor. let's go to another floor the caller. regina joins us from orlando on the democrats' line. caller: hi. some previous callers said i did not relate to any of the republicans -- i do not consider ron paul a republican sens he is more a libertarian. after eight years of disastrous bush policies, these republican candidates basically want to continue the same policies and to me that leaves republicans with no credibility. even forgiving newt gingrich -- they for gave bush for lying into the war so they will forgive anyone of anything. host: she hung up on us. let's go to ronald, independent caller from cincinnati, ohio. caller: i don't -- a majority

does not matter any more. it comes down to greed, power, and domination. nothingt going to get until people with an realize we need to get rid of the older ones, the one to become corrupted, get rid of them. it cannot expect them to do anything other than what they are doing today. host: which of the candidates stand out to you as not corrupt and that you support? caller: obama and santorum. host: why is that? caller: because both of them -- speak from the heart and said a correction. they are fighting corruption. obama had been in there now and the congress of stopping him anywhere. filibuster. they keep talking about the one to put it out there but there is nothing, it out of it. this is one of the most failing converses. and then the pipeline, a mixture of oil and sand. you put it under high pressure

and i am all -- old enough to remember sandblasted taking paid off the buildings. once you damage one of these offers it will never come back. that would be a bad message. we would have to be shipping in from overseas. host: california. republican line. caller: is this would be? host: yes, it is. what do you think about the candidates? are you related to any of them? caller: i am, for mr. romney. i think he is the one that could bring us out of this mess that we are in. i mean, i am an older person and i cross over sometimes but i listen to everything i have to say and i think he is the one that could bring us out with his experience of what he has done.

he did not marry for money or anything, he has been married to the same wife for 40 years and his wife comes out and speak. i kind of like gingrich, too. my dad, that was his favorite man in washington. but i was not sure until i started listening to everything that i have been listening to, and who is running. i like santorum, too. but i think romney is a man that can bring us out of this mess that we are in. the economy is so bad. i am just lucky to say i just retired from my job recently. things are getting bad -- but i have been working sense i was 17 years old and i am 70 now. on gingrich, i do not like what i am hearing. are you still here?

host: question for you -- what do you think about the candidate's income? does it change the way you relate to them? newt gingrich has been attacking mitt romney for some of the money he's got. what do you think? democrat i don't think he should do that. i think that is going -- caller: i don't think he should do that. i think it is going to hurt him. i do not like that, when they talk about its other so bad. but i heard him -- pelosi said shares of the goals on him and now you have herman cain backing him up and hand -- cain was messing around. i like a nice, clean president. host: let's take a look at some of these numbers. what candidates make in terms of income.

those numbers come to us from "the washington post," "open secrets," and the associated press. the change the way but to the candidates? "the new york times" looks not just that in, but how much they gave away. how generous were they. in 2010, looking at newt gingrich, mitt romney, president obama. newt gingrich income was $3 million range, mitt romney, $21 million, barack obama, $1.7 million, and the media taxpayer makes about $44,000. here is what they paid in federal income tax and a person is to charity.

new hampshire, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to start by congratulating c-span because you have helped me in new hampshire voting and i hope other people will take advantage of your video library. you have captured town meeting sessions of both key candidates -- gingrich and romney. and frankly, the decision i want to make is what will each one do if elected president. and in those meetings, which were not on the national tv -- you cover them, but they were town meetings -- where hundreds of questions could be asked.

frankly, if people would look at the response by those two candidates, newt gingrich is way far ahead of romney in having specific plans that he would execute if he were elected president. i am still trying to find out what romney would do, but all of -- all he is doing is attacking gingrich. i cannot find his positions on immigration, taxpayer funded abortions, foreign policy -- he is wishing watching. he does not have a clear-cut plan. gingrich does. so i recommend people throughout the country visit your video library and check out the candidates on them at their leisure and they will really get a lot of information. thank you for the call. host: you can find a video library at c-span.org. las vegas, nevada.

david on the democrats' line but the race will be coming to your stayed relatively soon. we do you relate to? caller: as a democrat, the candidate i relate to most would be ron paul, and that is based on his foreign-policy platform. he seems to be the only candidate to mean that understands the fact that democracy doesn't survive empire building and the militarization that is going on with our nation right now the historically. a very dangerous precedent. the great transfer of power to the executive branch. watching it happen -- where they can detain american citizens. the loss of liberty. host: let me get you back to

this idea about relating to a candidate. is there something about his personal story or the way he conducted himself that you identify with? caller: personally i cannot identify with republicans on independents basically because of economic, political beliefs that way. i just relate to his foreign- policy ideas. i think the way he does as far as that goes. personally on any other issues i am not with any of the republicans or the independents .here host: clearance, republican from nashville, tennessee. a chemical i am calling this morning about the question -- caller: i am calling this morning about the question, do you relate to any of the candidates. i obviously didn't -- i do not live in the neighborhoods of mitt romney's but i have no disrespect for those who do what he and other corporate folks

have done in this country. as a matter of fact, i am appreciative of them because i have worked for several that have been in that situation. but my real problem about this whole campaign is, since they can't find anything really wrong with mr. romney, there is this absolute storm of press about reliability -- relatability. 99% of us cannot relate to him and his wealth, but because i cannot find anything else and his character that is so wrong, this pretense of not relating to him. his friends say he is a warm, generous man. and that is not just close friends. he is not as aloof as perceived

-- and i think it would be sad as a country if he were to be rejected because of that. i looking forward to super tuesday. hopefully there will still be more than one candidate to. romney -- "thel real romney" book you have on tv last night was nothing but a hatchet job by "the boston globe." host: let's look at "the washington post" article looking at how well or lack thereof helps or hurts candidates and how it has changed over time.

the story goes on to talk about an interaction it romney had recently when he was talking to floridians about their economic struggles, especially dealing with the mortgage crisis.

does that change your ability to relate to a candidate depending on how they act? let's hear from gary, independent line from arkansas. what do you think? caller: well, as far as mitt romney is concerned, he is obviously hard to relate to. host: why is that? caller: well, because he is so rich. that is the easy answer to the question. i think as far as the whole answer of who we relate to, we need to think about this and do not just look at outside appearances. when you look at somebody like obama and clinton you think, at least i do, you feel like he is a great guy to hang out with, a happy person, the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with. that is what they always said about bush, right?

but that is not we want as a present, is it? that is not who i want. little more than glorified actors. what we really need to do at this kind -- in this country is to look at issues. i relate most to ron paul because he is the type of person, he will take a salary of $39,000, the median income of all americans right now. i relate to him because he is doing what i would do. he speaks truth to power. and i want to say something about what one of the past callers said, i think milton from nevada, he was talking about newt gingrich. don't vote for newt. this is a guy back in 1997 who wanted to -- he proposed the death penalty, i believe, for two ounces of marijuana. say what you want to say about doing drugs, but the guy is off his rocker.

he will say anything he can say to get into the presidency. as far as relating -- let's just focus on the issues. i can relate to anybody. i can relate to romney if i wanted to. but the thing is, he is just a puppet and most of them are. vold ron paul. host: let us look at a comment by twitter -- in this open the washington post" story it shows snapshots. john carey when serving -- john kerry windsurfing. and liability. and george w. bush, folksyness was not a liability. and rockefeller, despite his wealth was able to win friends with a common touch. coming up next, we will look at the battleground in florida and talk about the conservative both at how things are playing out there. we will be right back.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> it would be intolerable if a handful of violent people -- and that is what it is, just a handful -- can heartened us against needed change. i have seen an uglier violence and it perverts the spirit of america. i saw that the republican convention in 1964 when governor rockefeller was shouted down. in minneapolis when governor wallace, a man with whom i disagree, was heckled into silence. it happened to me in philadelphia. we must give notice to this violent feud. there are millions of decent americans who are willing to sacrifice for change. but the want to do it without being threatened to, and and what to do it peacefully. if they are the non-violent majority, black and white, who are for change without violence. these are the people whose voice

i want to be. >> as candidates campaigned for president, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website, c- span.orgthecontenders to see the video of contenders who had a lasting impact. >> our ancestors came across the oceans and sailing ships you would not go across a lake in. when they arrived there was nothing here. they built their tiny cabins and they did it with neighbors helping one another, not federal grants. [applause] they came here because they wanted to be free, and they wanted to practice the religion of their choice, and after a 200 years, too many of us take those privileges for granted. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. "washington journal" continues. host: al cardenas is chairman of the american conservative union and the former florida republican party chairman.

he joins us now from miami. good morning, sir. >> -- guest: good morning, good to be with you. host: we want to talk about the primary battle unfolding in florida. tell us what the american conservative union is, and do you usually endorse a candidate? guest: we do not usually endorse a candidate. we have not so far this year. we were founded 48 years ago by william buckley, an icon of the conservative movement. we walked into the umbrella group for all conservative organizations. we have 43 board of director members and most of them represent a particular significant conservative organization in america. we labor ourselves as an umbrella group, movement, -- label ourselves as an umbrella group, movement. host: as we head into primary day, what is your reading on the ground? a lot of polling shows that running as a double-digit lead

over his closest rival, newt gingrich. guest: yes, it has been -- again, since things started iow a, it has been a very volatile environment in every state we have been to. we basically reverted to where we were three weeks ago in florida. if you look at the polls in florida three weeks ago and you look today, they are pretty stable. mitt romney does indeed have a double-digit lead in two of the three last polls -- i think nbc and rasmussen had him 15 or 16 points ahead. he is about -- was about 12 or 13 points and had three weeks ago. but the senate did -- significant thing is what happens in florida and in our role. newt gingrich had a phenomenal women in south carolina, came to florida, started out with a double-digit lead in florida. that means a 25-point turnaround for him, which is incredible. it but interestingly enough, the momentum in florida did not last

very much. it seems after the first few days, the momentum was gone, the lead was shrinking. after the first debate and i got to be about even and sends the time in the last five or six days, mitt romney pulled ahead by a significant percentage. host: looking at a story from "the orlando sentinel," one of the top stories is that tea party flows from it. -- slows romney. what kind of role is the tea party playing in your state right now? guest: well, you know, you can't confuse the tea party with the general national perspective of this.

the tea party participants in new hampshire favored mitt romney over the other contestants, but yet when you got to south carolina there was a significant lead by newt gingrich with tea partiers. it looks like mitch is doing well with the group as well as newt gingrich. it seems like the tea party in each state has a bit of a different perspective given the state and the circumstances. i think they all stand for the same thing -- they want less government in their lives, the one to be left alone, they want the president out, but who they prefer differs from state to state. host: al cardenas is our guest, chairman of the american conservative union and also a three-time vice-chairman of the republican party of florida. served two terms as chairman of the gop in florida. to join the conversation, here are the numbers to call --

al cardenas was originally from havana, cuba, born there in the 1940's and came to the united states at the age of 12 when his parents fled fidel castro's regime in 1960. he grew up in south florida and made history when he became the first hispanic to be a delete a major state party. it remains the only hispanic republican party chairman in florida history. give us your perspective on the hispanic vote. such a diverse community, within the community, of course. we see articles looking at the cuban politicians -- population. but do you feel candidates are reaching out for the latino vote? host: they have. if you --

guest: they have. hispanics account for 1.5 million in florida out of the 18 or 19 we have, but when you looked at the schedules, about one-third of the amount of time were spent with hispanics and florida. history has shown that the hispanic community in the primary tenants to vote more on a block basis -- 60% or 70% of the vote will go to the eventual winner. the past few cycles, the winner of the primary has always been the one who seems to have garnered the most support in the hispanic community. but obviously it has been a very important focus group to go after. the candidates have done that. they have spent a lot of personal time and resources in the hispanic media. florida is a little unusual. it has about 1.5 million hispanics, about one-third are cuban-american dissent. almost one-third now of puerto rican descent, and the rest is a

combination of folks from central america, south america, and the caribbean. it is truly a mixed state, one that usually votes republican in a more significant way than the most of the country. hispanics traditionally will vote between 45%, 50%, 55% for the republican nominee, which is not the case and other states. but they are very active in republican party politics, very active in the primary, so the candidates have given their time to a community. host: laura from pennsylvania. republican line. caller: thank you very much for allowing us to have our views aired. i wanted to ask mr. al cardenas why isn't your group and other conservative groups tying fiscal -- is kolar, we are losing you.

let's see if we can -- guest: i am not sure we could hear the question. host: let us hear from >> , the independent line from sebastian, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. you were saying the tea party in florida at this bank -- backing newt gingrich and on what i understand they are supposed to be for limited government. from my perspective, newt gingrich does not seem all that different from barack obama. they both want bid -- big government and just want to decide where they spend the money. i think the only candidate on the big stage right now that is for smaller government is ron paul. thanks, c-span. guest: thanks. ron paul has won for president -- i think this is his third time, and the most successful effort. frankly, his libertarian type of effort has really been gaining

ground within the conservative movement. before he was more of an asterisks and now i say 15% or 20% of conservatives are beginning to like and appreciate and support some of the libertarian views that are expressed by ron paul. and he has certainly become an important leader of a movement, a movement we take very seriously within the conservative party. there are three legs of the school of this -- conservative thought. in national security, domestic policy, fiscal policy. we have libertarians who have, of -- kind of a common ground with most conservatives concerning fiscal issues. they take a different point of view that most conservatives on foreign policy. and on social policies, the same, they are more of a government leave me alone and social conservatives want to make sure that traditional values are preserved in america. so, our job in the american

conservative union, is to make sure the ronald reagan three legs of the stool are upheld, but we certainly want to listen to all conservatives, their points of view. host: let's look at a story in which our guest al cardenas was recently quoted. it comes from "the hill." saying thatted as the back and forth, the attacks between newt gingrich and mitt romney and the titular, have got to stop. tell us about what you think this is doing right now into the debate and also the candidates future. guest: i feel that way. in fairness to the candidates -- look, the voters have concluded somewhere, some hair -- somehow, that the philosophical differences between our current candidate field are acceptable and they are beginning to look at who will be the best fighter, the one who can take on this president, who they consider to be a very difficult and tough foe. so, that has gotten the campaign

to turn a bit more primal, the candidates being more tougher with one another, not only to make a difference in the primary but to show the primary voters who can really stand up to president obama the best. and so, that has turned the character of this campaign into a difference sort of -- then what i would like to see. we are at our 19th debate. i think we were doing really well in the first attend. talking about the differences of opinion with the president and the differences of policy decisions amongst ourselves. i think lately it has turned to be more personal. but, look, in deference to the campaigns, what they put on the air and what they say seems to be what is attracting the voters, and the voters want to the adsugh fighter and are conveying the image. as someone who wants to look toward the general election sooner than later, i would like to have us turn back to taking on the president, while at the

same time under the when the primary. host: let's hear from joe. caller: i'm interested in super pacs. it is hard to believe that money equates with free speech. the supreme court decision. it makes no sense to me. a term like winter soldier or liberator. these people did things. it seems to me odd. tost: well, you're going have about $22 million spent in florida this cycle in the presidential primary. it to up as high as $25 million. this is almost twice as much as

in 2008. play a part and that. conservatives oppose the mccain go-feingold legislation. there is more ability to judge the process. very few people know who is contributing. i do not like the idea. i think americans are entitled to free speech. it provides those with the resources to of a point of view that they believe in expressed. host: robert in miami. talk about what it's like to be living in florida. are you getting phone calls?

it like?a ligh caller: there are more ads than usual. i like to read the newspapers and the internet to get my substance of what is going on. i have a question for your guest. are you satisfied with the two front runners right now? if he had a wish, who would he prefer to be the republican candidate? guest: i am glad you are watching c-span. i think we have had a compass and field. rick perry has dropped out and he was a popular governor. it has been a tough process. we had many other qualified candidates dropouts.

it is a four-person race. i respect many of the people who follow rick santorum. i think conservatives will come together. mitt romney seems to have a good lead. newt gingrich is challenging it. it will make them tougher for the general election. i was hoping they would spend more time on the issues. this is a process. they can go in the direction which gives them the chance to be the nominee. i think we'll end up with a good candidate. i have cast my vote already. host: you supported mitt romney in 2008. guest: i did.

host: do you see it mitt romney as a true conservative? some expressed concern over his conservative credentials. guest: i think all four candidates or conservatives. if you come from a liberal or moderate state and you're the head of that state, t to difficult to be labeled a conservative. so much to happens in that state has a liberal tone. the key is how did you stand for it? mitt romney had a record of hundreds of vetoes. i thought he did a good job of giving the hostile congress or state legislator he had to deal with. people talk about positions he has taken during the 1990's.

i believe in the authenticity of his differences of opinions, especially in social issues, and i take him at his word. he is a downright decent guy. you have to deal with what you have to deal with. if we talk of the list of potential candidates people in the northeast or midwest, we are bisected america and that is not fair. i take him at his word. host: al cardenas is the chairman of the american conservative union and the former florida republican party chairman. here is a story from "usa today." let's look at some of the

numbers. 40% would go for mitt romney -- 48%. we're talking about florida today. host: this is according to polling by mason-dixon. do you think that will sway voters as they look to who could win florida in november? guest: i think at some point it will. there has been a lot of wear and tear in the program with the debates.

every time candidates attack each other, president obama seems to do better. look at the state of the union address. our candidates are out there in a slog-fest. they are losing ground to the president. numbers were changed -- numbers will change. we're still very competitive with the president. some polls have mitt romney ahead of the president. i think that president obama is a formidable candidate, for better candidate than he is an office holder. whoever doesn't think is the

case is not being realistic. host: joseph from kentucky, republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to challenge my fellow americans to look at the record of each candidate and how they have voted in the past and if they have been consistent with what they stand for. i think with the two leading candidates, this is like a two- headed snake. if you knew who was controlling these people and who the money behind these people was, it would open up people's eyes. mitt romney's biggest contributors are banks. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: if you're a voter, you

should visit the website of each candidate. they play at with great detail the policy positions of the candidates. that should be a first point of reference. it is hard to figure out how candidate is on an issue during a 30-second debate. these are all good, decent americans with a desire to help their countries. people of all ilks contribute money for different reasons. i take americans on their word that they give money based on their belief that someone will be the best candidate for the presidency, whether you're giving $10 or $50,000.

most people give money to those people whose position they believe in. host: michael in arlington, virginia. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i am listing -- i'm listening to the former florida republican party chairman. how did the conservatives lose their way? havervatives don't always a conservative views. the republicans now are for big business. everything they do they side with big business. we're all voting in the national election. a handful of the business republicans --do you feel they are conservative? conservative up here in the

washington area, they did not rally around you. you cannot go to arizona and teller republican governor of arizona that i did not like what you are doing, stopping spanish people from driving down the streets. what conservative are you? host: let's get a comment from the chairmen. if you can reflect on your heritage and say how that is playing out. he does not think hispanics are being responded to by the republican party. what do you think? guest: i wrote an op-ed piece about immigration reform. both parties have had their chance to get this thing right and neither has done tit.

we had a republican majority in the past decade, and president obama had a democratic house and senate and the white house and he is not acted for three years on immigration reform. we have to have law and order. we have to do what is right for america. 9/11.past everybody needs to register some how. we do need a verification process and make sure that people are working and paying taxes. we have to stop illegal immigration. you have 11 million or trolling people that are here and you have to deal with that. they are from all over the world

-- 11 million or 12 million people. we have to fix the system. we have to make sure we have better visa programs -- engineering, science, math. many companies are setting up in india and elsewhere, and we need to open our doors to them. for people who want to work hard, we do have a need for work permits for agricultural workers. my friends in georgia and alabama were concerned about people not registering and not being legal pass some tough e- verify laws. we need to be balanced but we need to be fair. we have to stop having people in

here illegally. those who stay here should contribute to our economy. we have to figure out a way for the others to be able to return home safely at a proper time frame. it is a very complicated issue. keeping 11 million people living underground is not a compassionate thing to do. host: looking at how maureen dowd is taking on the interaction that president obama had with jan brewer. i want to read an excerpt from column.luher she is a columnist with an opinion. what do think of that image?

does that make the president more of a hero with hispanic voters? guest: images are important. i could not care about that incident. i care what the president does. he has said hispanic leaders in the white house. he is now passed his third year in office and he has yet to make a single immigration reform proposal to the congress other than a minor component which is his version of the dream act. he has to stop beating the community, beating the country and put forth a proposal and have it voted and debated on. that's what america is all about. it is a battle of ideas and

finding the best ways to fix problems in the country. we're at a standstill. we have more unemployed people in this country then we have never had. we have a budget the president proposed $3.7 trillion, 40% of which is dead. bt. our credit rating has been lowered. investors lose confidence. invest and grow my business." we don't have that confidence in america now. the guy at the top has to take responsibility for it. host: let's hear from wayne. caller: good morning. i love your show.

my father is 93 years old. i asked who he would vote for. he is voting for and newt gingrich. we agree the guy running this country is a joke. he doesn't have any documents behind him. he comes over as a foreign aid student. all these records on his college records are all hidden. he has paid $1 million to hide his records. they are trying to produce tax records. we have a guy in the white house without any records. he was born in a hospital -- host: you do not believe the

president's birth certificate. guest: well, look, there are many people that believe as he does and they are labeled as birthers. i have not spent the time on this issue. i have not looked at this or talk with investigators, experts, the fbi to determine the authenticity of these documents. i'm hoping the process we have in this country vets these things. i'm concentrating on a feeding the press. he is not the only person that shares the point of view. host: let's hear from ron. caller: i saw you put up those polls with the candidates versus obama. you did not put up ron paul's

numbers. he was within 1% or two percentage points of obama. i just wanted to know your thoughts on that. a lot of people seem to label him as unelectable. oft: you're a resident florida. are you voting this week? are you concerned ron paul is not in florida right now/ ? caller: i am not voting because i'm an independent. i'm not too concerned he is not focusing attention on florida. it is a winner-take-all state. it takes millions and millions of dollars to make an impact. i think his strategy is good.

host: let's hear from our guest. guest: i think he is right in terms of strategy. ron paul the summer between 8%- 12% in florida -- ron paul is somewhere between. overall, i presume he is doing the right thing. people in every state want people to care for their state. if you do not campaigned hard in any state, the voters will penalize you for that. he is probably off and running and doing the right thing. we have february coming up. there are some caucus states where it seems to be doing better. if romney wins florida, february

is a good month for him. he has michigan coming up. the gingrich campaign has to strategizing about getting ready for march. int: let's hear from mark south carolina, a republican. did you vote? caller: yes, i did. good morning. i supported ron paul and i will always support ron paul. i have a concern with the media and the public at large. i believe it is media generated. you have three other candidates. newt gingrich has been married three times. if you cheat on the two wives,

you'll cheat on your country. rick santorum -- then you have mitt romney who has been flip-floping. i am a simple man. you just said to do research. i have done that. ron paul is a man of integrity. guest: yep. i think ron paul is doing fairly well. he has survived. we're down to four candidates. he is one of them. he is ending up in third place, not fourth place.

his voice is going to count. view ron paul's points of is going to be considered on a number of fronts. he is serving a purpose by staying on the campaign. i think he is a good candidate. i do not share your views on the other candidates. i believe we will win in november. host: al cardenas is the former party chairman of the florida republican party. sarah palin cannot on facebook on friday -- came out on facebook on a post, and she

complains the republicans need a fair primary that is not cut short by the establishment. she is talking about newt gingrich. do you see this as a dividing moment? you have said the interparty war -- the interparty war needs to stop. do you see this as a moment that could lead to a split that could see third party candidate? guest: usually you have the division that is now resoluble if you're of differing views in the electorate. they want tax reform and lesser government and a plan to take

down the national debt. you have a primary electorate that agrees on the significant challenges facing our country. there's been such volatility. if you're a lady and goes to a wedding and she knows the dress she wants but they could to a few stores and, quite find the one item that fits all of their needs. some of that is happening in the primary process. if the electorate is united in their goals, everybody will come together once we have a nominee. the campaigns may not. there may be some feistiness among the candidates themselves. that nominee will stand for pretty much the same thing the electorate is looking for.

host: derek from baltimore. caller: waned from florida -- wayne from florida is a shallow mind it big ot. this black guy is the president of the united states. host: you're referring to the caller who doubted president obama's citizenship. caller: the guy is ignorant. he gets up every morning hitting the fact that this black man is the president of the americaunid states. no diversity. i am a democrat from maryland. host: us get a response and let al cardenas defend the

republican party. follow up on the criticism against president obama's citizenship having a racist overtones. guest: i would like to make a quick comment. i do not think either party has ownership of any group in america, whether they are african-americans, hispanics, or asian americans. to think we think monolithic wly is an insult. 2010 prove the case that minorities do want conservative leaders. we elected senator marco rubio in florida. we elected hispanics in texas. we elected and hispanic in idaho.

we elected to hispanic governors of mexico. we elected two african-american members of congress. i am proud that all minorities are considering candidates. it is just as racist to criticize one particular group as it is to lay claim to the fact that your party is hostile to them. both parties want as many members to support them as they can. sometimes they do a better job. the country is better when minorities participate in both parties. i am comfortable being a conservative. america needs to have respect and civility.

it hurts me when somebody calls for such hostility. this is a great country. i care for this country so much. i have respect for other points of view. in this country, we need to do a better job of that. host: do :-do you have concernt the claims that president obama is not a u.s. citizen could be perceived as racist? guest: well, look, i have lived in politics, when our politics for so long. claimso easy to lay a of bias. one good thing we of done it is still much better with this and

everyone in this country is equal and that is how we should be. i believe we're getting there. there are far less people that are biased. i do not know what the mindset or the motivation of the individuals are. i do know there's been some concern about the president's bona fides. it took three years to present whatever document he was presenting. i take the process at its word. i don't think you're a racist because you have your doubts. i think the president encouraged those doubts by not be more forthcoming. host: gary from arkansas,

good morning. caller: good morning. host: welcome to the program. caller: i am a republican. i feel like in the republican race, it came down to where if you have money, you are going to win this thing. that is not right. look at port santorum -- poor santorum starring to death. he has a good message. he will not make it because of big money. i am a disabled american veterans. i was in the war. i really do feel like this country is going the wrong way.

this guy who called and that said the president is black and get over it. ok, fine. i do not care if he is green. if he is honest and he can do an honest job -- host: let's get a response. why isn't rick santorum doing better in states like florida? respectful, i'm a person of the process. it has something to do with your ability to be a leader once you get elected to public office. you have to have to be able to sell yourself to those who make contributions whether a $10 contribution or $5,000. you have to organize teams and

have important people and people who want to work for you organized in every state. all of those efforts are part of a winning campaign. if you are underwhelming in terms of the things you do, you are not going to win. that is fair. those are the rules. you have to understand the rules when you enter a contest. i think the rules are fine. i do not believe money means everything. that gentleman said he supported the president but he thought that all that money was not good. this year the president will have $1 billion to spend. that is probably more than twice as much money as whoever the republican candidate will be. president obama is supported by

as many bankers and wall street guys as any republican will be. they're both supported by the same areas -- lawyers, bankers, businessmen. that is what america is all about. getting into class warfare is overlooking the record. democrats are going to be very well financed. the winner will be the ones who captivate the hearts and imaginations of most americans. they are both going to be well- founded but the democrats will be better funded. host: 1 last tweet from rick. lookingok at a graphics

at the age of registered voters in florida. they tend to be somewhat younger than non-hispanics. how do you think they will weigh in? guest: very interesting question. i have five registered children. it is fun to talk about it at home. they are third generation, born in the states. we love to chat about this. national security was a big issue for us. we lived the nightmare of a communist thug taking over our country, taking away our property and our freedom and our rights. we believe the party that faced communism in the sternest of

ways will be dealt with. our generation may not have that as the ultimate litmus test. then they concentrate on domestic issues than older generations. i believe the younger generation is pretty conservative as well. they do not seem to be voting much differently than the elders did, although perhaps for different reasons and with different priorities. host: al cardenas, thank you so much for joining us this morning from miami. guest: my pleasure. good to be with you. host: up next we'll speak with janet murguia from la raza. >> 8:30. michele obama joins the labor

secretary to announce a plan to help military families. the plant operates the family and medical leave act that lets her family members take up to 12 weeks of leave -- the plan updates. questions remain about u.s. test iraqi security ties in the canre and whether a riraq defend themselves. a top aide to leon panetta says the administration expects to begin talks on how to arrange a long-term security relationship. "the new york times" reports aught from has s

jeb bush. he said that we are not spoken. jeb bush has so far remained neutral. mr. romney says he was "getting just wehaled" by the former house speaker. now he is pushing back. the former house speaker said he is closing the gap between himself and mitt romney in florida and that the republican party needs a clear conservative to run against president obama in the fall and that there is little difference between the president and mitt romney when it comes to their policies and politics such as health care.

primary coverage begins tomorrow night. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> for more resources, use the c-span video library. c-span.org/campaign2012. >> tonight, a tour of the consumer electronics show in las vegas. "the communicators," tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: we're joined now by janet murguia to continue under discussion of florida and spanish issues in florida. thank you for joining us. i want to get your thoughts -- talk about your sense of how the immigration issue has played out in the florida primary? your sense of the immigration debate. guest: it has been fascinating to see the candidates talk about the issue with the knowledge that part of the electorate in the state in which they are running is a diverse state with a large and significant and important block of latino voters and hispanic voters. frost is been revealing to see how many of these candidates

initiating their our reach for the first time to latino voters. it is new. i don't think we referred candidate romney talk like he has spoken in the last few weeks about immigration. immigration was something that he spoke very low about in iowa and south carolina and new hampshire, and today he is moderating his tone on immigration because of the importance of the constituency there and he is trying to do more to articulate a message of embracing immigrants and to address this issue. other candidates -- newt gingrich have tried to talk about this issue but i do not

think he has got much traction. he also is trying to articulate his position. they are engaging on this issue in a bigger way. you have an important hispanic voting bloc in that state. host: we will do the following lines a little different. the democratic line is 202-737- 0001. the republican line is 202-737- 0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. we have a line for hispanic voters, 202-628-0184. we want to go to a mason-dixon poll that had mitt romney up with the 52% -- this is for

hispanic voters. i want to talk about the issues that are important for hispanic voters in florida. eligible voters in florida, 1/3 of hispanic voters are of cuban origin. nine% are from mexican origin. contrast that nationwide. 5% are cuban. guest: i think it is important to say that the hispanic population is not a monolithic group. it is a diverse population within itself.

you have a different break out of hispanic subgroups. it is inverted in terms of the population nationally. what is happening is that candidates are trying to find ways to connect with this important voting bloc. it has grown significantly, not just in florida. the hispanic voting bloc was decisive in launching senator mccain's presidential campaign and securing his nomination for the republican party. because of the mix percentages of the cell population, it is confusing for some of the candidates to figure out how to engage cuban-americans. they have been predominantly largely aligned with the republican party. the mix of puerto ricans and

south americans and mexicans is creating some confusion in how they engage in immigration. it feels like they are struggling. what we're finding in florida is that the hispanic population care's not just about immigration. it is not the most important issue. the economy has hit florida hard and the foreclosure crisis in hispanics were hit very hard by the foreclosure crisis nationally. that is one the biggest states that was affected in the crash in the markets. -- and the impact we have seen in the hispanic community. immigration is surfacing as

key. host: newt gingrich focused on hispanic voters in florida. there was a cuban spring uprising in the country. "you will be held accountable." we have seen some of these issues at play in the debate. guest: absolutely. some issues resonate more than others. issues relating to cuba often resonate much higher than they do with the mexican-american population or the puerto rican population.

statehood matters. statehood or a, well, that is an important issue -- stated or a commonwealth. some are more important than others. host: one issue that groups have been upset about -- we have a clip about english being the official language of the united states. [video clip] >> i am for english as the official language. english is the ultimate language of opportunity. parents know this. this should not be controversial. there are currently in 94

languages in the college at miami-dade. we want everybody to be able to talk with each other. that should not be controversial. we are inviting people to come to america to be americans. host: do you have a reaction to that? guest: we also view english as an important language for everyone to embrace. it is important for us to see our community become successful in the united states. our affiliates, we have classis, english classes that are filled almost 24 hours a day with different individuals wanting to learn english. we cannot get enough funding. learning english is important.

94 languages at miami-dade college. it should be important to learn english. we have seen a trend within our demographics beyond the first demonstration -- generation to embrace english. we are in a global economy. we should be embracing several languages if we're going to be competitive as a country. it is important for everyone to understand that we must learn several languages if we're going to be competitive globally. host: we're talking with janet murguia, president and ceo of the national council of la raza. we have a comment on twitter.

host: tell us about your group. guest: the national council of la raza has served the hispanic population in the united states for least 43 years. we were created in 1968 and now are an american institution with headquarters in washington, d.c. our mission is to create opportunities for hispanics in the united states and help everybody to achieve the american dream, including latino families. we have had a record of impact in engaging on policy issues across the gamut of jobs and health care and education, immigration and civil rights. all those issues become important to us as we look to

helping to make sure hispanics have opportunities in this country. we have 300 organizations that provide services and programs for spandex across the country. they teach in this class is, all for after-school programs. we provide a number of different services including health programs and other services. in terms of immigration, that is one issue we follow closely. we do believe it is important to of comprehensive immigration reform. we have supported that approach. you cannot just support one aspect of reform. we understand that we have to restore the rule of law. we have supported enforcement,

but we cannot do that alone. other folks want immigration reform -- you also have to deal with those undocumented immigrants who have been in this country for now a generation. the status of those families has to be addressed. we now have next status families -- perhaps a parent is here legally and the spouse is not here legally, but now you of a u.s. citizen-born child. we have to find a rational and a humane way that deals with those undocumented immigrants who have been here. i do not think you can ignore them. governor romney said there will

all self-support and that is not realistic. you need a rational way. those folks should go to the end of the line and receive background checks and make sure they learn english. they need a path to citizenship. cracking down on employers is also important. there is a combined number of elements that would lead us into what would be a rational, common-sense solution on immigration reform. host: talking with janet murguia with the national council of la raza. you're with the university of kansas. and you served in the clinton white house as a deputy assistant working on what issues? guest: deputy director of

legislative affairs, congressional affairs. i helped promote the clinton agenda with congress. our press credential is i'm a jayhawk. i have three different degrees from the university of kansas. host: david is from illinois. good morning. caller: good morning. why is your organization against when you need a photo id for all kinds of things. you seem like a nice woman, very well spoken. is la raza an anti-government

group and may be a terrorist operation? thank you. host: charges from david. guest: thank you for giving me a chance to respond. i'm sorry that you will have heard that or believe that. some detractors -- i think because of the work we've done on immigration reform -- there are some detractors who tried to assert ridiculous and notions about national council of la raza. they are just not true -- that we would have some sort of secret agenda to somehow turn the united states back over to mexico. that is patently false, david. we have no such agenda.

we have an american agenda at the will help integrate immigrants into the u.s. and to help the hispanics in the u.s. to achieve the american dream. we have done a lot of that over the course of our 43 years as an organization. then get to the first part of his comments. we are concerned about what has been a significant explosion of voter suppression laws across the different states in the country. our understanding -- there have been reviews of the voting laws -- we would create barriers to many minorities, not just hispanics -,.

many of these requirements that require a photo id really would be a detriment. many in the population did not have access to a photo id's. it would be one thing if we see that the voter fraud was a big issue in this country. but that is not the case. we have not seen issues where voter fraud has been dramatically overtaken and been a big problem in any one state. yet we see these laws that would create barriers and some say up to 5 million voters would be affected and prohibited from voting with the passage of these laws. mostly they would affect those

that are legitimate voters. host: roberto is from the bronx, new york. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a couple of pet peeves. hispanic was a congressional law to try and group all latinos together. i am of puerto rican origin. i have worked here all my life. i have two degrees and consider myself speaking in the english language. [speaking spanish] it is not english.

when people talk about making english the official language, it is a racist code to be able to pander to the dominance face in the nine states-- the dominant race in the united states. the original indigenous people -- host: we're losing you there. is there a republican in the field that you would vote for? would you vote for obama? caller: i voted democrat for obama the last time. i feel he has more to offer and

has made the necessary changes we need. the cuban gentleman was talking about being diverse and wanting to be republican win that is a party of exclusion and elitists. "panic," although we talk about "hispanic," these are all just code words. host: we move on to ron. caller: the issue is not immigration, it is illegal immigration.

anyone who supports something illegal is anti-american. i live in san francisco. not long ago, a family was wiped out by illegal aliens. the issue i have a real problem with at this point is we have a sanctuary sit-in. this guy was under the radar and had committed a crime before. he was turned over to immigration when he committed a crime. he was in a gang. he would have been deported out of the city and country. what bothers me the most is that a whole family was wiped out by this guy, and innocent family coming home from a barbecue, because they were mistaken as being a rival gang members.

guest: let me assure ron that i do not think anyone would ever want to have protections for serious criminal offenders. the point of immigration reform is to allow reforms that would create a system that allows for those who been productive and making contributions to the country to stay under a rational process. no one wants to protect gang members, a drug dealers, murderers, criminal offenders. the hispanic community would be the first to say to get them out of here. i want to make that clear. i think people make assumptions about immigration reform and

that criminal offenders with the people we would be trying to protect. that is not the case. we can reform the system where those individuals should be sent back. we can make sure that others who have been contributing members of this society are allowed to have a rational system to be able to be part of this society. a comment on roberto's responses, we often refer to ourselves as latino or hispanic. a lot of how people refer to themselves has to do with where they are regionally and culturally. you can use a latino or hispanic. we at nclr use the terms latino

and hispanic. we understand it is a great debate about how people want to self-identify, but that is what we do. host: i want to turn it back to the 2012 election. how big an issue is immigration reform going to be? boom guest -- guest: when the republicans pick a kennedy, that canada will have to articulate a clear position on the issue and how they want to engage the hispanic community on all of the issues of importance. when it comes to president obama, there has been a bit of that enthusiasm gap with hispanics in terms of how they view president obama.

at the end of the day, they will be able to make a comparison between president obama and his record and whoever the republican candidate is. that is going to matter. it is important to note that at the end of today, there will be a choice. .ost: let's go to tammy caller: it occurs to people few years that you have these entities, if it were not for this keystone pipeline that plays a huge role -- host: what role will immigration issues play? caller: it plays a huge role.

the republican party represents the hispanic vote. me personally, i have worked as a contractor for 30 years in the hill country. i recently relocated because of the dynamics of that particular region. i was up against immigration and could not compete with these people on the job front. host: let's go to lorenzo on the line for hispanic callers from north carolina. caller: good morning. i am hispanic or latino.

my father was born in mexico. i was born in texas. i get a lot of negative reaction. i believe people who are not educated about our national origin -- we are the original, we are indians. this was our country before the white man came along. we have been here longer than anybody. i was stopped yesterday by a black man who told me i was not even an american. i think people have got a misconception about who we are, where we come from. we are native americans. host: the question from twitter

asks about the state of hispanic and african-american relations. guest: we work closely with other national organizations including the naacp, the leadership conference on civil rights with many different communities of color. it is important we approach issues with shared objectives. we should be working together across different communities and with broad coalitions to address those. i think we have. we have partnered at the national level with many organizations and leaders. it is important to highlight where we have shared objectives and outcomes to achieve and work

together. we have been able to make some important strides. recently i was in alabama, in montgomery, the state capital, because alabama passed an extreme law that is anti- immigrant and anti-hispanic. what many in the hispanic community our feeling is a new wave of discrimination. a lot of this is a result of different state laws like the one in alabama creating havoc for immigrants and a lot of folks who look different. that is a dangerous line. we have laws that make enforcement's so subjective. people may be reacting out of a sense of feeling under attack.

these laws in alabama and arizona are making people in the hispanic and latino community suspect in their own communities because of the subjectivity and broad authority being given to local law enforcement. they are turning over the jurisdiction of enforcement. it is traditionally and constitutionally relegated to the federal jurisdiction. it is now occurring at the local level. that is creating racial profiling and discrimination. host: we have about five minutes left with janet murguia. the next caller is an independent from arkansas. caller: my father-in-law is mexican. he just became a u.s. citizen

the long, hard way. i have a couple of quick stories that i would like to comment on. i will hurry. wife is aers's teacher in the school system. a little hispanic girl brought a doily in for show and tell. the teacher wanted to see how it was made. she was invited to the house. she had a nice conversation with the mother. the little girl started telling her she had to go because no white people were allowed in the neighborhood after dark. boston on the to republican line. caller: i am calling about a statement of the african

community -- african-american community being faults. -- false. when we call and ask for help, they do nothing because of their anti-american believes. host: are you talking about the voting booths? caller: yes. reform is just another way of saying amnesty as far as i am concerned. people grow up knowing right from wrong. host: that was jerome with his thoughts on amnesty. guest: i think everyone understands in a post 9/11 world, we have to have -- we

have to make sure we're clear about our boundaries and understand that enforcement is part of any immigration reform effort. when you are talking about how to deal with the 11 million that are undocumented, we need to have strategic approaches. the idea that 11 million people will self-support -- self- deport or vanish is not realistic. we need solutions to restore the rule of law and provide a way for folks to have a flow on the border. we have to deal with the 11 million who are here and have been tied into this country for at least a generation. you have young people here who were brought here and have grown up in this country.

they pay no allegiance to other countries. to not give them an outlet and some way to have a passage to citizenship when they have graduated and attended high school or in military service or in college, these dream act kids ought to be given some sort of relief. we're not talking about amnesty for anyone. we're really talking about taking steps that would require folks to demonstrate good faith connections to this country. we can do the background checks and understand they have to go to the end of the line and have to learn english. i do not think anyone is talking about amnesty. we need reasonable reforms that will address the issue on the border and those individuals who are here. host: let's go to john on the democratic line from california. caller: i am an american black

man. i believe anyone who comes to this country who wants to work and is an honest person should be able to come here. i believe the hispanic people, particularly the mexicans, have been here much longer than most people. the only illegal immigrants in this country are the white people who kidnapped the black people from africa and brought them here. if someone wants to be in this country, we should be asking the mexican people for the ability to stay here along with the native americans. i think the mexicans are being demonized by white racists. when they had a good economy, they had no problem working those people on the farms and having them live in of seen conditions. when the economy turned south, they want to run them out.

guest: there has been a lot of demonization in terms of the rhetoric used around immigration reform. even folks in other communities of color realize those terms and the way people in the latino community are treated today harkens back to a time when others in our society were treated with discrimination for a sense of injustice. there are folks who are sympathetic to the fact that we do need immigration reform so that we can deal with these awful cases we are seeing where racial profiling is happening and discrimination is occurring. host: david is a republican from tampa, fla., where the election is happening tomorrow. caller: i would like to ask your

guest what she believes the message is going to people waiting outside our country to come and go legal way. what message does subsequent change migration sent to those applicants? guest: that is a good question. it is one we have to deal with through a comprehensive approach to reforming the immigration system. you need to make sure you have strengthened the legal immigration system. you cannot do that alone and expect the rest of the immigration system will be able to work. it does take providing a thoughtful approach to legal immigration and also understanding what kind of reforms we need on the border. there have been billions of dollars invested already on enforcement efforts on the border. how much is enough? that is a question we still have

not heard a response to from many who say we just need to keep building a border security. we also have to have a solution for the folks who are here. we can walk and chew gum at the same time. we can find a reform that will deal with system reforms but will deal with border enforcement, the undocumented who are here, and employers who have been unscrupulous in a way that will provide a great infusion into our economy. because of the folks in the shadows, they have been withholding the economic advantages we would see if they were part of society. we do need to reform and be fair as we look at the immigration system on the legal side. we have to deal with those folks who are undocumented and have been here for a generation. host: thank you, janet murguia,

from the national council of la raza. next, a look at funding from the navy. first, an update from c-span radio. >> earnings numbers show income rose last month by the most in nine months. the commerce department said incomes rose 0.5%. consumer spending was unchanged. for 2011, inflation-adjusted incomes rose 0.9%. an update on the occupied d.c. protesters, park police planned to begin enforcing the no camping rule at two sites today. the park service is warning protesters that those who violate the camping rule beginning at noon will be subject to arrest. protesters have said they intend to stay. we will keep you posted on the story. rick santorum says he plans to

return to the campaign trail today after clearing his sunday schedule to be with his daughter was submitted to the hospital over the weekend. the former pennsylvania senators said in his daughter had a miraculous turnaround. he will skip over florida and had to missouri, minnesota, colorado, and nevada. they all hold caucuses at the beginning of february. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> for more resources in the presidential race, use the campaign 2012 web site to watch videos of the candidates and read the latest from the candidate, political reporters, and people like you on social networking sites. >> tonight, fcc commissioners toward the consumer electronics

show in las vegas. this is a second in a series on information technology. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every monday, we do a segment that deals with federal programs with a special focus on its mission, participants, and cost. this week, we're looking at the announcement of the pentagon budget with a specific look and the navy. we're joined by todd harrison with the center for strategic and budgetary assessment. the pentagon has said it wants to focus on the far side of the world in the asian pacific theater. is what they laid out going to be sufficient to meet emission -- the mission in the next 10

years? guest: we do not know enough yet to note it will be specific. the pentagon budget will be rolled out on february 13. they have given us a glimpse. on thursday, and made an announcement of what we should expect in the request with some of the highlights. it is what the pentagon wants us to see. what we can tell from that is that they are talking about a real shift in resources in the military. the focus is shifting to asia. military capabilities will be shifting as well. they will begin emphasizing -- deemphasizing ground forces and emphasizing other programs. the navy will maintain 11 aircraft carriers.

that is something that has been questioned for a while. people in the navy have been talking about the idea of scaling back to 10 or nine carriers. the decision for now is to maintain 11 carriers. it is not without cuts in some areas of the navy budget. they're going to be reducing the total number of ships over the next five years. host: 20 or 22 ships will be cut or slow down. we're doing the standard phone lines for democrats, republicans, and independents. we have last year's budget for the navy. the total request was $161 billion.

$47 billion for personnel, $46 billion for procurement and maintenance. $18 billion for research and development. what are you expecting when we see the budget for 2013? guest: the trams are largely going to come from procurement. they will be buying fewer ships. we will see some reductions in the operations and maintenance budget because they're talking about retiring and number of ships. that will save operating funds. i do not expect to see a lot of personnel changes. there may be some small reductions we have not seen yet. in terms of pay and benefits, there are not changes that would substantially affect the navy budget for personnel costs.

host: we are taking out of commission seven different cruisers. guest: 7 out of 22 cruisers. one of the roles cruisers play in the navy now is for missile defense. six of the ones they're taking out do not have missile defense systems. they have not been upgraded. that is one of the reasons why you shift to a posture to focus more on a jet and the pacific missile defense will become more important. other countries are developing missile systems that can affect the ships. they need the missile defense systems to operate in those environments. they're taking the ships out of the fleet that do not have that protection. 6 do not have missile defense. one has damage or cracking in the whole -- hull that would

require costly affairs. it is not worth it to the navy to keep it in the fleet. host: todd harrison is with us. he has worked with the department of defense in assessing challenges to modernization in different parts of the military. let's go to the phones. we start in illinois with jim on the independent line. caller: yesterday mitt romney said the navy is smaller today than in 1917. i wonder if that is accurate. guest: that is a question that has come out a lot. the metric he is using is the total number of ships in the fleet. that is not exactly a good match it to use when talking about the strength of a navy. we have 285 right now.

the recent low point was in 2007. we had to hundred 78 ships in the navy. -- 278 ships in the navy. we have been growing since then as part of the upgrade program. 1916 was the last low point in the size of the navy. the total number is not a good match it to use to judge the strength of the navy, especially over such long periods of time. in 1916, we did not have aircraft carriers, missile defense systems, nuclear-power submarines. the number of ships in the military today might be smaller but is far more capable than we have had in modern history. host: secretary panetta was talking about the reduction in shipbuilding and the role of

different ships in the navy. [video clip] >> newt submarines will be modified to carry more cruise missiles and develop an under- sea strike option. we will invest integrated sensor for aircraft, ships, and missiles and the most advanced electronic warfare and communications capabilities. host: that was secretary panetta talking about the navy of the future. jody asks if there are other large navies to compete with us and you are our allies -- who are our allies. guest: in terms of taking on

another country's navy, and no other country can come close to the capabilities we have. china is starting to build up its sea forces. they have one old soviet carrier. they are not operational with it. we would not just be going to counter another country's naval forces. we use our navy for other joint operations. there was the recent operation of the navy in libya. we had one of our guided missile submarines off the coast of libya. they launched over 100 tomahawk cruise missiles as part of the original operation to take down the air defenses. it is not just going head-to- head with another navy. host: this article says a

diminished navy cannot meet its multiple missions. it lays out some of the missions. a ship can only be in one place at one time. the navy is asked to chase pirates, protect the strait of hormuz, and keep a presence in the south china sea. let's go back to the phones. paul is a libertarian from michigan. caller: i think mitt romney said the budget should meet the mission as opposed to the mission of finding itself to meet the budget. i think that is misguided. the military is not profit- oriented. cost cutting is not going to factor into their planning as much as a private business.

their goal would always to be to get more money. we should only spend as much on the military as we can afford. i was wondering about your opinion on whether or not we should tailor the budget to meet the mission or tailor the budget to meet the mission. -- or tailor the mission to meet the budget. guest: the reality is our military strategy has always been constrained by resources except in unusual circumstances in times of war when we are willing to spend unlimited sums. we are constrained by resources. right now, the constraint is riven by the -- driven by the budget control act of 2011. that is the deal struck in congress. it was a bipartisan agreement. that allowed us to increase the

debt ceiling last summer. it put caps on defense and non- defense spending going forward. the budget the president is rolling out and new guidance are driven by the budget control act. that is the primary factor behind them. that is the reality we live in. host: the pentagon laid out the broad strokes on a 10-year budget that looks to reduce more than $487 billion over the next five years. the fiscal 2013 budget is $525 billion. guest: i would point out that those figures are in compliance with the initial budget caps on defense in the budget control act. because the super committee failed to reach an agreement last fall, there is a lower set

the budget caps for 2013 and beyond. instead of being $487 billion in reductions, it will be close to $1 trillion if congress does not do something to stop it from going into effect. host: let's go to steve on the democrat' live from little rock. caller: my question is -- host: we lost steve. we will go to richard on the line from outside the state -- united states, from belize. caller: the soviet union used to have a 10-year budget. they never fulfilled any of

them. now we have the budget pact with the 10-year budget. because of our financial condition, we will never be able to fulfil any of these budgets. how seriously do you take these budgets? can you say with a straight face that any of them will come close? guest: there is very little chance the spending levels outlined in the budget control act will come to pass. it will likely be modified multiple times over the next decade. it is not a complete budget. it is a top line budget. it sets a target for defense and non-defense spending over the next 10 years. the details of what will go into each budget is to be determined. each congress has to determine that year by year. we have had agreements like this in the past going back to 1985.

they started a process like this with a sequestered and mechanism to enforce deficit reductions. these agreements really lost for more than a year or two. host: steven is on the republican line from san diego. your thoughts? caller: i have a question. last year, a nuclear submarine was lost. i cannot figure out why we were not able to identify it. guest: i am not familiar with that. host: we will go to alex from washington, d.c., on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to ask about a role -- the role of the amphibious patrol in the future.

is the budget going to affect a level advancements -- upper level advancements? guest: the combat ship is a new ship entering the fleet right now. i believe two are operational and ready. these are smaller ships. they have a payload module so you can change out what mission they are performing by changing of the module. they are smaller, faster, not as armed. they are intended for different missions. they would be ideally suited for something like anti-piracy missions. they will not provide the same visibility as a destroyer or cruiser.

in terms of the amphibious ships, we have 11 aircraft carriers in the navy. we have nine smaller aircraft carriers in the marine corps. with a total of about 33 amphibious ships. nine of them will carry aircraft. they can perform a wide range of missions. they carry helicopters. they will carry the joint strike fighter in future years. the small deck aircraft carriers carry about 1600 marines. they pack quite a punch. host: are any of these up for cuts? guest: it is hard to tell. they talk about delaying the purchase of one of the ships. we will have to wait and see when the details come out what

that will do to the number of them. host: gary is an independent from silver lake, michigan. caller: kittyhawk was retired in 2006. or was 2009. i was wondering if they could refit that and use it as a brig ship. they could put the guantanamo bay prisoners on that and save a ton of money. guest: i have not heard the proposal. it would be part of the military budget, but i have not heard that proposal. i do not know how to comment on it. host: let's go to james, a democrat from new jersey. caller: happy new year.

what happened is that a friend of mine did an excellent job of budgeting for the clinton administration. a man who can really budget knows what the pentagon needs and does not need, that is him. i would not underestimate him at all. host: how good a job do you think leon panetta has done in laying out his strategy? how big of a fight is he in to get it through congress? guest: this is an election year. these are tough issues he is taking on. he has done a lot to reach out to different components of the military to make sure they feel their voices are being heard and

to go to bat for them within the administration. he has a rich history in d.c. in terms of budgets. he was chairman of the house budget committee. he was the head of the office of management and budget under the clinton administration. he went on to be chief of staff in the clinton administration. he was the director of the cia. he has an interesting history coming into this. he certainly knows how to fight the budget battle. he knows what he is getting into. he knows how it works from all sides. i think he is going to be an influential figure in how this plays out. host: is the iranians fleet a match for the united states?

guest: it is not a match if we were to go head-to-head. they could cause problems. they could mine the strait of hormuz. we face an asymmetric threat from smaller patrol boats that could swarm our ships and carry out suicide attacks like we saw on the uss coals years ago. the navy is working on measures to counter that. host: camilla is going from tennessee. caller: i am a democrat, not a republican. i have a nephew who was in the navy. also, brother-in-law. all the money we spend overseas, people are getting kidnapped in somalia.

we're having to rescue all of these people overseas. were they overseas -- what are the overseas doing? are they humanitarians ior volunteers or visiting? it is very dangerous. my brother stays in saudi arabia. his wife is from yemen. there is a lot of turmoil over there. i do not feel like people volunteering to go to these countries with all this turmoil -- then we have to spend money if they are kidnapped. they are trying to write a book or whatever. host: let's bring it back to the navy and what has been laid out as the future of the mission. there's going to be a focus on the asia-pacific region.

guest: we're shifting to a focus on the asia-pacific region. there will be an emphasis on high-tech systems, advanced missiles, modifying some of our attack submarines to carry more cruise missiles that we have used in recent conflicts, as well as developing a new missile they have not defined yet. i am not sure what those capabilities will be. we need to be operate at a greater range and distance because our ships can be vulnerable to missile attacks. one way to avoid that is to operate at greater range. they will be operating the aircraft and carriers. the marine corps and navy will be getting different versions of the aircraft. that is an advanced this generation aircraft. -- fifth generation aircraft.

this is a relatively short range aircraft. we're talking about a combat radius of 600 nautical miles from the aircraft carrier. they can refuel in the air, but then the refueling planes are vulnerable to attack. that is one thing the navy will have to deal with in the future. there have been talked about creating a stealthy, longer- range craft that would operate off of carriers. ke vehiclee a drone-ligh for a strike and surveillance. it has not been developed yet. host: donna is a democrat from maryland. caller: i heard that the defense budget exceeds social

security and medicare combined. i believe i heard it on c-span. i do not know what country would be stupid enough to attack this country. nine/11th was like a -- 9/11 was like a gang. you would target the gang. they are finally doing that by invading other countries. guest: the total defense budget tops out at over $700 billion a year. fy 2010 was the peak. it is similar to social security. it is not more than we spend on social security and medicare combined. it is about 20% of the total

federal budget that goes to defense. it is little over half of what they call the discretionary part of the budget that congress has to appropriate every year. social security and medicare are part of the mandatory budget and do not require yearly appropriations. host: secretary panetta brought up nuclear submarines. do nuclear weapons still serve a function? guest: they do. other countries have nuclear weapons. we maintain what we consider to be a deterrent force. there are three components to the nuclear triad. we have 14 submarines right now. that is the most secure part of our nuclear triad. subs can hide effectively. they can survive an initial attack and surface and respond.

we have an assured second strike capability. that is what deters someone from striking us with a nuclear strike. obviously, russia still has thousands of nuclear weapons. china has a decent sized nuclear arsenal. there are lan-based -- land- based icbm's that can launch in a moment. there are also bombers. ballistic missile and nuclear submarines, there are 14 in the fleet right now. they will be reaching the end of their life in the next few decades. one thing announced in the budget is that there have been plans to begin a replacement program for these submarines. starte going to delay the of it by about two years, but they still intend to replace them.

host: jim is a republican from ohio. caller: i think the number one agenda for the federal government is to protect us with the fence. i think the government has [unintelligible] host: explain the spotted owl syndrome. caller: they could cut the entitlements and we could go back to regular defense instead of spending money on all these other entitlements. guest: that is the big debate. how much is enough for defense?

should it be 30% of gdp? 30% of the overall federal budget? should it be matched to the threats we face and the capability we need in the future? this is the crux of the issue right now of the debate in washington. what is the right balance to strike between competing priorities? a lot of people think it is essential we maintained social security, medicaid, the non- defense discretionary budget like veterans affairs. a lot of people do not realize the veterans budget with pay and benefits for veterans is not funded out of dod. it is not part of the defense budget. it is another $120 billion a year to provide those benefits

to veterans. there are strong arguments for all of them. the other part is the revenue side of the equation. these are all of hot-button political issues. if there were an easy way to reach a compromise and consensus, we would have found it by now. we have not. host: george is on the democrats line from west virginia. caller: i think social security is not supposed to be in the budget. people pay into social security. that is supposed to stay in it. defense should never because -- be cut. it is in the constitution of the president's job is to protect

the people of all costs. the defense budget should be taken off the table. i do not care if you have to spend 90% of the money for defense. it is the defense of the american people that counts. it is not all of these other entitlements. host: do you think there are savings that can be found? secretary panetta laid out that we would work smarter and saved in overhead costs in the pentagon. caller: he is wrong. now is not the time to go cutting the military down, whatever branch of service you want to talk about. guest: you have to look at the defense budget. you have to take a fresh look every time you reach a strategic pivot point. that is where we are now. we're out of iraq and on our way

out of afghanistan. we have been conducting two large stabilization campaigns for over a decade. we have to take a fresh look and ask if the military we have today is what we need for the future in terms of size and capability. if not, we have to start making changes. that could mean cutting for the military. host: brian is an independent from ohio. caller: how come they cut at the bottom instead of the fat cats? if something happens, they will not trade their pencil for a gun. guest: they are reducing the numbers of flag and general officers. over the past decade, the number

of stars in the pentagon kept rising to the point where it is out of purpose -- proportionate with lower-ranking troops. there was a real push to start producing ranks of the upper levels. you do not save a lot of money by cutting people at the senior levels because there are so few of them. you can only cut a few hundred generals. it does not say that much in the grand scheme of things. host: secretary panetta said we do not want a hollowing out of the military. explain that term. do you think these cuts do that? guest: i do not like the term because it is in precise. it can be used to mean we have portly trained people in the military, we're not adequately funding their training in

peacetime operations. it could mean we are not adequately funding equipment. it could also mean we do not have enough people. there are a lot of ways to call out a military. -- there are a lot of ways you could hollow out the military. they're talking about bringing things down proportionally. we have not heard enough details to know what they're doing in terms of force strength, budgets for modernization, are in the -- r&d spending. host: richard is on the line from jacksonville, florida. caller: the united states marines are part of the united states navy. if you say in significant cuts, you are talking about tens of

thousands of united states marines being let go and not brought in to the military. god help us when you need us. get your figures straight. you say the navy will not be taking personnel cuts. there are definite cuts. host: explain the personnel cuts the caller is referring to. guest: the marines will go down to 182,000, a cut of about 20,000. that is slightly above where they were before september 11. the marine corps and army group over the last decade starting in 2007 to meet the point requirements to iraq and afghanistan. they will be rolling back that grow substantially. the caller is correct that the marine corps budget is part of the department of the navy's budget.

the operate as a separate service. what we have been talking about in terms of cuts in ships has been mostly focused on the navy and not the marine corps. it is a fair point that the marine corps will be taking more cuts than the navy in this budget. host: talk about what it is that you do. guest: we're a non-partisan think tank. we focus on issues of strategy. the conduct a number of studies looking at how we should think about warfare and threats in the future. i focus on the defense budget, all aspects of the budget, and what things like sequestration will mean in the coming years. host: rish is a democrat from

baltimore. caller: i would like to ask c- span to please us and guests that are not what -- war- mongering propagandists. i stand behind people in the supermarket you are on food stamps. i watched the base relocation fiasco. these people are rolling in money. it is a sick jobs program. we cannot keep up the stupid military spending. host: todd harrison studies and assesses the military budget. one thing she brought up was the base realignment and closure. that was asked for in the military budget. guest: the 2005 round of base

closures cost of more than $30 billion, more than the pentagon expected. there are long-term savings when you close facilities. it will be more than a decade before we actually recoup what we initially spent on it. the pentagon floated the notion of starting another round of base closures in this budget. i asked senior leaders if a bank on savings from it because they were not likely to get savings the next five years. they said no. i tell those likely to cost money and asked if they had budgeted for that. they said no. it is a political hot potato as it always is. you are talking bought closing bases in districts and states. members of congress will not want to go along with that in an election year.

host: explain more about what your group does. you survey people about the military. guest: we're focusing on military compensation and how to get better value for the compensation system for the military. we are conducting an online survey. we're trying to attract people from the military to come to the website and take the survey. it is relatively short. csbamilsurvey.org. if you know people in the military or are in the military, please send them over to take the survey. host: toddy harrison, thank you for your time. -- todd harrison, thank you for your time. we will see you back here tomorrow on "washington na